Prince Harry endured a difficult day in court as the judge presiding over his lawsuit against the Daily Mail delivered a stark critique of the case.
Justice Nicklin made it clear that the prince’s claims are on unstable ground, urging Harry and his legal team to confront the reality of their situation. His message was unambiguous: without substantial evidence, the case is likely to fail. Over the years, Prince Harry has been an outspoken critic of the press, but the courtroom demands a different standard.
The judge emphasized that serious allegations such as phone hacking, burglary, or bugging require indisputable proof, not speculation. He set a deadline of January 14, 2026, for Harry’s team to present concrete evidence, signaling that their current approach was far from adequate.
The challenges deepened when Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, resisted full disclosure of evidence. A critical piece of evidence—a 2022 text message from Harry, which was expected to be a cornerstone of the case—has inexplicably gone missing. This message, allegedly warning Baroness Doreen Lawrence about explosive information, was meant to support their claims but is now unavailable, casting serious doubt on their arguments.
Harry’s accusations against Daily Mail executives for allegedly lying during the Leveson Inquiry in 2011 and 2012 also came under scrutiny. Justice Nicklin pointedly reminded the legal team that a mistake is not the same as a deliberate lie and cautioned them against making accusations without solid proof. His firm stance underscored the need for evidence-based arguments rather than conjecture.
This legal battle follows a previous setback for Prince Harry. Last year, his lawsuit against the Mirror fell apart after his lawyers argued that the publication must have used phone hacking. The Mirror successfully countered by showing the story in question had already been reported by other outlets and was sourced through legitimate means. That earlier failure now looms over Harry’s current case, with the Daily Mail employing a similar defense by asserting that their information came from credible sources.
Adding to the complications, Harry’s legal team tried to link a 1990s story to an alleged criminal conspiracy involving the Daily Mail. The judge dismissed this effort outright, stating that they could not twist facts to fit their narrative. Justice Nicklin further cautioned against using the discovery process to search for evidence to bolster unsubstantiated claims, making it clear that such tactics would not be entertained.
With evidence lacking and the judge’s criticisms mounting, Prince Harry’s lawsuit faces significant obstacles. Unless his team can provide the necessary proof to support their allegations, the case risks being dismissed long before the trial begins in 2026. The judge’s remarks have made it clear that speculation and conjecture will not suffice, leaving the prince’s legal strategy in dire need of revision.
