Pressure Mounts Over Prince Harry's Lawsuits

Prince Harry chalked up his first defeat against his most hated U.K. tabloid in what a lawyer told Newsweek is a sign he was "not picking his battles wisely."

The Duke of Sussex dropped his libel case against The Mail on Sunday as a spokesperson cited concern the lawsuit was giving the newspaper a platform to resurface allegations he argues are false.

Harry's claim was launched at breakneck speed in February 2022, just four days after publication, suggesting the coverage provoked a strong reaction from the prince.

However, almost two years later he faces costs estimated at close to $1 million after he dropped the lawsuit, which revolved around a news story about his quest to get his police bodyguards re-instated.

It came after a judge in December rejected Harry's bid for a quick win, paving the way for the tabloid to operate a defense that its article was a matter of "honest opinion," and therefore exempt from defamation laws.

Mark Stephens, a U.K. attorney at law firm Howard Kennedy, told Newsweek: "It was not a case that he was going to win because it was essentially an opinion case.

"I sort of understand why he brought this because it's a very sensitive issue for him and we know from an interview with the head of royal protection that there were some credible threats against Meghan from the far right. I think this is part of the difficulty of Harry not picking his battles wisely."

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Legal Rollercoaster

Harry recently won £140,000 damages in a successful phone hacking lawsuit brought against Mirror Group Newspapers but the Mail is reporting the prince will have to pay a costs bill from this ditched libel case of £750,000, which if even half-way correct would obliterate those meagre takings.

The Sussexes' spokesperson pointed out costs in this case have not yet been determined by the judge, so the final figure is not yet known.

The whole saga, though, raises questions about some of Harry's judgment calls spanning 10 separate lawsuits, which have returned some moments of glory as well as some of humiliation for the couple.

Meghan Markle's case against The Mail on Sunday over a private letter she sent her father ended in victory but along the way she was forced to apologize, stating she had not meant to mislead the court.

The Sun mocked up a front page calling her "Little Miss Forgetful" after private emails disclosed in court showed she authorized a staff member to leak information to royal biography Finding Freedom, by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, contrary to previous statements by her lawyer.

Prince Harry recently won a phone hacking case against the Mirror Group but even then the judge still felt moved to question his decision-making in places.

Alongside his 15 successful claims, the duke's allegations in relation to 18 articles were rejected and on one such example the judge noted: "One does wonder what kind of judgment was exercised when claims are pursued to trial in respect of articles of this kind."

Harry filed two judicial reviews against the U.K. government over the Home Office decision to strip him of his police protection team, one of which he lost and one in which he is waiting for the outcome.

And his phone-hacking allegations against The Sun were thrown out for being too old while his accusation of other unlawful information-gathering, such as "blagging," will go to trial.

Tabloid Lawyer 'Couldn't Destroy Him'

Meanwhile, he still has a phone hacking and wire tapping lawsuit in the pipeline against the Daily Mail, which would be a major victory if he is successful or a crushing defeat if he is not, such is the strength of feeling between the two sides.

"On the phone hacking he's been pretty successful," Stephens said. "The Mirror had to win everything and they obviously didn't.

"The Sun are next up and then after that the Mail. I expect those cases to go ahead and of course each one builds on the previous one. Some of the findings from the judge were pretty robust.

"The Mirror employed this guy to destroy Harry in cross examination and he failed. He couldn't destroy him. So, although you never win every point, the main thrust of the case that there had been unlawful interceptions was an important issue."

However, the Mirror case also highlighted that even if he wins he may not be in for a bumper pay day of the kind Johnny Depp saw in his lawsuit against Amber Heard.

Harry took home £140,000 [$178,000] and may have a chunk taken out of that in costs while Depp, in America, was awarded $10 million.

"The voicemail interception damages are pretty lowly," Stephens said. "I think part of the problem is, if you are rendered a paraplegic you get about £250k so it's half of being rendered a paraplegic.

"In our terms' it's quite a big number whereas in American terms where you get a million or ten million for almost anything it's a big difference."

In U.K. cases, it is not uncommon for costs to exceed payouts in civil cases meaning Harry's strategy of filing multiple lawsuits simultaneously always carried with it a major financial risk if he got mixed results back.

However, Stephens still believes Harry will look back on this era of multiple lawsuits as a worthwhile episode in his life.

"I think he will, he thinks he's giving them an accounting which otherwise they would have avoided. I also think from his perspective he probably needed to do this to get through the obvious harm that was suffered by reference to losing his mother in the way he did.

"Part of the reason that both of the princes hate the media is because they think the media was responsible for their mother's death.

"So I think whether its a good motive or bad one I think its been cathartic for Harry to do this. He also thinks he's invoking systemic change, I'm less convinced about that."

Harry's Dropped Libel lawsuit

In relation to the libel case, the MoS broke the story that Harry had sued the Home Office over his police protection in January, 2022, prompting a statement from the prince's legal representative suggesting he wanted to pick up the tab for any armed officers sent his way.

The statement cited an offer made during a family summit at Sandringham in January 2020. However, Home Office lawyers said in a court filing: "The offer [to pay] is now advanced in the Claimant's witness statement...but notably was not advanced to RAVEC in June 2021 or in any of the pre-action correspondence which followed."

The newspaper used this statement to argue Harry's account of his offer to pay was simply spin produced in reaction to its own coverage.

Its headline read: "How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a SECRET... then—just minutes after the story broke—his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute."

The January, 2022, statement from Harry's legal representative read: "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. As is widely known, others who have left public office and have an inherent threat risk receive police protection at no cost to them."

A Sussex spokesperson said in a statement Friday: "As is the nature with legal proceedings, years have lapsed since this complaint was first filed.

"In the time since, the main hearing relating to the duke's judicial review has taken place and we are awaiting the final decision as to whether Ravec [the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures] acted lawfully with regard to his security.

"His focus remains there, and on the safety of his family, rather than these legal proceedings that give a continued platform to the Mail's false claims all those years ago."

Jack Royston is Newsweek's chief royal correspondent based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.