AMP in the post
Harry Disputes Mail On Sunday’s Claims That His PR Team Tried To Sway Public Opinion
Prince Harry is currently waiting for a High Court judge to rule on a number of preliminary issues after making a libel claim against the Mail publisher over articles disclosing his legal battle with the Home Office.
He sued Associated Newspapers Limited, the publishers of the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online, over a report they published following a separate High Court case over his security arrangements when he visits the U.K.
On Thursday, Justice Nicklin considered a number of preliminary issues at a London High Court after Associated Newspapers disputed the claim.
The judge was asked to consider the “natural and ordinary” meaning of the words from the article, which Harry claims brought him much anguish and shame.
AMP in the post
Justin Rushbrooke QC, who is leading Prince Harry’s team, is insisting that the article contains “defamatory” comments by making it seem as if Harry “lied” and “improperly and cynically” tried to manipulate public opinion by trying “to keep his legal fight with the Government secret from the public”.
On the other hand, Associated Papers is arguing that the article isn’t defamatory.
Rushbrooke said the articles claimed the duke “lied in his initial public statements to the effect that he had always been willing to pay for police protection in the UK, when the true position, as revealed by High Court documents, was that he had only made such an offer recently, after his dispute had started and after his visit to the UK in June 2021”.
He said the pieces suggested he “improperly and cynically tried to manipulate and confuse public opinion by authorising his ‘spin doctors’ to put out false and misleading statements about his willingness to pay for police protection immediately after the Mail on Sunday had revealed he was suing the Government”.
Prince Harry’s Legal Team Argues That A Newspaper Article Saying He Didn’t Offer To Pay For His Security Was Defamatory
Speaking about how the article tarnished the 37-year-old Duke’s image, Rushbrooke said that the article made it seem as if he “tried to keep his legal fight with the Government secret from the public, including the fact that he expected British taxpayers to pay for his police protection, in a way which was improper and showed a lack of transparency on his part”.
AMP in the post
He said: “Allegations that a person has lied to the public, manipulated the public and attempted to keep secret which ought properly to be public are serious ones which tend to lower him in the eyes of right-thinking people.
“It is submitted that the statements … are clearly defamatory.”
Pleading their own case, Associated Papers noted that any “reasonable reader” would understand the words termed “defamatory” by Harry’s legal team.
Be sure to catch up on everything happening with The Royal Family right now. Come back here often for all The Royal Family spoilers, news, and updates.
Editorial credit: LINGTREN.COM / Shutterstock.com