With their wild stories of hacking, burglary and bugging, the claims brought by Prince Harry, Baroness Lawrence and the others were as dramatic as they were damaging.
But after a forensic examination of the evidence, Mr Justice Nicklin decided they were entirely without merit as he praised the reliability and credibility of the Daily Mail’s professional journalists.
Repeatedly throughout his 436-page judgment, he preferred the ‘straightforward’, ‘impressive’ and ‘honest’ testimony of the Mail’s witnesses over the ‘unconvincing’ and ‘inconsistent’ evidence of some of those on the side of the claimants.
The judge accepted much of what the claimants had to tell him, but he repeatedly made the finding that they had ‘limited’ actual direct knowledge – they were simply acting on what they had been told.
Some of the most nefarious allegations were struck out before the trial.
Prince Harry
The self-styled ‘dragon slayer’ of newspapers, Prince Harry, 41, alleged 15 articles about him came from phone hacking or other unlawful activities.
Six of them were written by the Daily Mail’s Royal Editor, Rebecca English, who was ‘an impressive and honest witness’, said Mr Justice Nicklin. A ‘significant witness’, he said, her evidence mattered on the sourcing of articles and ‘in relation to the broader issues of journalistic practice’.
He specifically threw out an allegation she had tried to get the flight details of Prince Harry’s former girlfriend Chelsy Davy, and he was critical of the claimants’ lawyers for springing allegations against her at the trial in relation to phone hacking which were ‘entirely unsupported by evidence’.
The Judge said Sir Elton John had ‘limited evidence to give’ on the matters in hand
The Mail on Sunday’s Caroline Graham was accused of obtaining flight information and the name of Ms Davy through bribing a British Airways official. But the judge believed Ms Graham’s account of how it came from legitimate sources.
Harry said an article about him telling strangers around a campfire in Botswana about falling in love with Ms Davy must have come from voicemail interception. But the judge ruled the phone hacking allegation was ‘unsupported’.
Another Mail on Sunday journalist, Barbara Jones, was ‘an impressive witness whose evidence I accept’, he said.
Harry told the court ‘I’m not friends with any of these journalists’, though in messages with the Mail’s Charlotte Griffiths, she dubbed him ‘Mr Mischief’, he called her ‘sugar’ and the prince wrote: ‘Miss our movie snuggles! xxx’. The judge said these messages had not been relevant to his findings.
Responding to a 2002 article headlined ‘Harry’s older woman’, about his friendship with Natalie Pinkham, the duke claimed only a ‘small group of people knew’, and a blagger must have obtained call data or a journalist intercepted voicemails.
The judge accepted the journalist’s evidence that it came from their social circle.
The judge said: ‘In assessing Prince Harry’s evidence overall, it was apparent that he wished the Court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue.
‘At times, this led him beyond giving factual evidence into advancing arguments on the issues. Overall, this did not affect the quality of Prince Harry’s evidence, which I accept.’
Baroness Lawrence
Recruited as a trophy ‘national treasure’ by Prince Harry – despite the newspaper’s pivotal role in bringing her son Stephen Lawrence’s murderers to justice – the peer, 73, claimed her phones were hacked for crime reporter Stephen Wright, whose stories actually came from his unrivalled police contacts.
The baroness had accused Mr Wright of targeting her by listening to her live telephone calls, bugging and covert surveillance, monitoring her bank accounts and paying corrupt police officers.
Rejecting all of these, Mr Justice Nicklin said Mr Wright’s explanation for how he obtained a scoop on Scotland Yard admitting defeat was ‘coherent and plausible’.
Another article about the Lawrences getting £320,000 compensation came from one of Mr Wright’s sources, while an exclusive about a forensic breakthrough was also legitimately sourced.
Mr Wright, whose career has seen him overturn several miscarriages of justice, was ‘an experienced crime reporter’ and had been an ‘honest witness’, the judge found.
Sir Elton and David Furnish, pictured, complained that information about their newborn son had been gained by ‘false pretences’
Sir Elton John and David Furnish
When the singer gave evidence over videolink, he demanded to know why he wasn’t being asked about ‘horrendous’ things being alleged such as journalists tapping the landline he shares with his husband David Furnish.
Informed that, in fact, his publicist Gary Farrow had leaked stories, Sir Elton, 79, later said, ‘That’s why Mr Farrow no longer works for us.’
The judge rejected the claim that a 2015 article by Charlotte Griffiths entitled ‘Elton in Monaco ambulance dash’ had come from ‘medical blagging’.
He said: ‘I consider it more likely than not that the immediate source of the information used by Ms Griffiths was Mr Farrow.’
Ms Griffiths was ‘an impressive witness… I accept her evidence as honest,’ the judge said.
He was critical of the claimants’ lawyers for advancing serious allegations about hospital blagging and voicemail interception ‘without proper notice or evidential foundation’.
Sir Elton and Mr Furnish also complained that information about their newborn son had been blagged by ‘false pretences’.
The judge said: ‘Associated [the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday] demonstrated a credible and legitimate sourcing route’ for the key parts of the article, and he also accepted co-author Sharon Churcher’s evidence that some of the information came from confidential sources who knew the couple.
The judge said, like the other claimants, the singer had ‘limited evidence to give’ on the matters in hand. Nicole Lampert, another writer who wrote about Sir Elton, was ‘a careful and impressive witness’ who responded to questions ‘calmly, firmly and without exaggeration’, he said.
The judge said Liz Hurley ‘has limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute’
Elizabeth Hurley
The model and actress, 61, who attended the High Court with her son Damian, 24, in matching sunglasses, sobbed in the witness box alleging ‘monstrous’ conduct such as ‘sticky window microphones’ planted outside her dining room.
She accepted she had ‘no idea’ whether people in her camp talked to the Press and admitted a story about her phoning her ex Steve Bing could have been provided to journalists by Mr Bing himself.
Her allegations of the window microphone and her landline being tapped, relied heavily on the suggestion that private investigator Gavin Burrows had ‘confessed’ to targeting her – which he said was lies.
The judge said it was ‘clear that she had been deeply shocked when she learned of Mr Burrows’ allegations concerning her’ but that ‘she has limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute’.
While feature writer Richard Price – accused of paying £4,000 cash for unlawfully obtained information about Ms Hurley – was ‘a credible and clear witness’ whose answers ‘were direct and unembellished’, Mr Justice Nicklin said. He said his account of the sourcing of his article was ‘clear, consistent and inherently plausible’.
Sadie Frost, pictured with her solicitor, blamed the breakdown of her marriage to Hollywood star Jude Law partly on stories which she believed came from hacking
Sadie Frost
The actress blamed the breakdown of her marriage to Hollywood star Jude Law partly on Press stories which she believed came from hacking.
Yet Associated’s evidence heard that ‘a very strong source in Sadie Frost’s social circle or family’ had provided the tips.
She complained about 11 articles, but the judge accepted all were legitimately sourced. He said even if they were not, Ms Frost would have been time-barred by a law that prevents claimants bringing a case too late.
The Mail’s long-standing senior journalist Alison Boshoff was accused of voicemail interception or using ‘a pretext call’, also known as ‘blagging’, to do so for her 2003 article ‘Welcome to the Sadie & Jude show’.
The judge said Ms Boshoff’s denial was ‘convincing’, adding: ‘Her response was firm, specific and inherently plausible. I also accept her point that the suggestion of obtaining these quotations by a pretext call to Ms Frost Law was… absurd’.
Ms Boshoff was ‘a straightforward and candid witness… I accept her evidence as honest,’ he ruled, as he repeated what Ms Boshoff had told the trial: ‘It’s not who I am, it’s not who the Daily Mail are.’
Journalist Katie Nicholl was accused of accessing details of Ms Frost’s ectopic pregnancy by unlawful means.
Mr Justice Nicklin said he considered it ‘more likely’ she obtained the information, which was never published, from a freelancer, adding: ‘I have found her to be a credible and truthful witness.’
The Mail’s Senior Editor-at-Large Richard Kay, who wrote about Ms Frost, was ‘an honest witness who did his best to assist the court’. Feature writer Paul Bracchi was also found to be ‘a straightforward and truthful witness’.
Sir Simon Hughes
Former Lib Dem justice minister did not complain about published articles but he made phone hacking allegations.
He said phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire had supplied information about him that was passed to Chris Anderson, a former associate editor at the Mail on Sunday.
It was alleged Mr Anderson knew that the private information, which he was emailed by freelance journalist Greg Miskiw, had come from Mulcaire.
Mr Justice Nicklin said Sir Simon had failed to prove Mr Anderson knew this.
