Prince Harry withdraws libel claim against publisher of Mail on Sunday

Get the free Morning Headlines electronic mail for information from our reporters the world over

Sign as much as our free Morning Headlines electronic mail

The Duke of Sussex has withdrawn his libel claim against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of The Mail on Sunday, a spokesperson for the corporate mentioned.

Harry, 39, sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over a February 2022 article about his authorized problem to the Home Office following a choice to vary 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”.

The duke’s legal professionals claimed it “purported to reveal, in sensational terms” that info from court docket paperwork “contradicted public statements he had previously made about his willingness to pay for police protection for himself and his family whilst in the UK”.

ANL contested the claim, arguing the article expressed an “honest opinion” and didn’t trigger “serious harm” to his repute.

The Daily Mail mentioned Harry had admitted defeat, abandoning his case simply hours earlier than a deadline for his legal professionals to cross over an inventory of related paperwork.

In a ruling final month, the duke misplaced a bid to have ANL’s “honest opinion” thrown out by a choose and was ordered to pay £48,447 in direction of the publisher’s legal professionals’ payments.

High Court choose Mr Justice Nicklin dominated that ANL may proceed with the “honest opinion” defence.

A spokeswoman for the publisher confirmed to the PA information company that Harry had withdrawn his case.

Harry is difficult the choice by the Royalty and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) to not grant him computerized police safety within the UK since stepping down as a senior member of the British royal household and transferring to California along with his household.

In written submissions, Harry’s lawyer Justin Rushbrooke KC argued that the newspaper’s defence must be thrown out as a result of it rested on “two provably false premises” regarding a press assertion launched by Harry when he made the authorized problem.

His assertion learn: “The duke first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham.

“That offer was dismissed. He remains willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer.”

However, Ravec mentioned his provide of personal funding “notably was not advanced” to the division.

The Mail on Sunday described this as “a crushing rebuttal to Harry’s initial public statement that implied he had always been willing to foot the bill” whereas including that the press assertion issued on behalf of the duke confused the media and misinformed the general public.