Prince Harry wins latest stage in newspaper claims

Image source, Reuters

The decision means Prince Harry's claims of unlawful information gathering can be heard in a full trial

The Duke of Sussex can go ahead with privacy claims against Associated Newspapers, after a judge's ruling opened the way for a trial.

The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday publishers wanted to stop the case, arguing that allegations of dishonestly obtaining information were out of time.

But a judge has decided the case, involving Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants, can proceed.

Associated Newspapers has strongly denied the allegations.

In a High Court ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said that Associated Newspapers had "not been able to deliver a 'knockout blow' to the claims of any of these claimants".

As well as Prince Harry, the newspaper group faces multiple claims of "gross breaches of privacy" from Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, Sir Simon Hughes and Baroness Doreen Lawrence.

This includes allegations of bugging devices in cars, listening into phone calls and dishonestly obtaining medical and financial information.

The decision that the case can go to a full trial was welcomed by actor Hugh Grant, the director of the Hacked Off group, which campaigns for press reforms.

"This ruling is a significant blow to the Daily Mail and great news for anyone who wants the truth about allegations of illegal press practices to come out," he said.

Prince Harry, in this latest battle with the UK's tabloid press, made a surprise appearance at London's High Court when the case against Associated Newspapers was initially heard in March.

The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday publishers had categorically denied the allegations as "preposterous smears" and said the claims had "no real prospects of succeeding".

But their lawyers had also argued that in any event the allegations were outside the requirement to bring claims within six years.

Some of the allegations are from decades ago, but lawyers for Prince Harry and the claimants successfully argued that new evidence had come to light and they were unaware at the time of how information had been covertly gathered.

"Each claimant has a real prospect of demonstrating that Associated, or those for whom Associated is responsible, concealed from him/her the relevant facts upon which a worthwhile claim of unlawful information gathering could have been advanced," wrote Mr Justice Nicklin in his ruling.

The judge's decision means that the claims can proceed, paving the way for a court hearing at a later date.

This could mean another in-person court appearance from Prince Harry, who earlier this year stepped into the witness box to give evidence in a hacking claim against another newspaper publisher, Mirror Group Newspapers.

He became the first senior royal in modern times to make such a court appearance, facing questions over two days, with the outcome of that case still to be decided.