Prince Harry’s libel case in opposition to the Mail on Sunday over an article about safety preparations should go to trial, a decide at London’s High Court has dominated – rejecting a bid to have the writer’s defence thrown out.
The Duke of Sussex, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over an article revealed in February 2022, masking his authorized problem in opposition to the Home Office following a choice to alter his publicly funded safety preparations when visiting the UK.
The story claimed Harry “tried to keep details of his legal battle to reinstate his police protection secret from the public”.
His legal professionals have mentioned this was “an attack on his honesty and integrity” and would undermine his charity work and efforts to deal with misinformation on-line.
ANL argues the article expressed an “honest opinion” and didn’t trigger “serious harm” to Harry’s popularity, and is contesting the declare.
At a listening to in March, the duke’s legal professionals launched a bid to have ANL’s defence thrown out and for judgment to be granted in his favour with out a trial.
However, in a written ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin refused to “strike out” ANL’s defence – concluding the writer had a “real prospect” of arguing its case that earlier press statements from Harry supplied a “misleading” description of his case in opposition to the Home Office.
In abstract, the decide mentioned: “The Duke of Sussex’s claim will now go through its remaining pre-trial phases and, unless resolved in some other way, to a trial at some point in 2024.”
A listening to coping with the implications of the decide’s resolution is predicted to be held on Tuesday.
The judgment comes a day after the High Court completed listening to a separate case about Harry’s safety arangements. As properly as suing ANL about its article on the topic, the duke can also be taking authorized motion in opposition to the Home Office over the choice in February 2020 that meant he would not be given the “same degree” of private protecting safety when visiting.
In that case, he claims the choice of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which comes below the Home Office’s remit – was “unlawful and unfair”.
A distinct decide is coping with that case and a judgment is predicted at a later date.
This breaking information story is being up to date and extra particulars will probably be revealed shortly.
Please refresh the web page for the fullest model.
You can obtain Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or pill through the Sky News App. You may observe @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to maintain up with the most recent information.
Source: information.sky.com”