Prince Harry's Lawyers Accused of a 'Travesty' by Tabloid in Libel Lawsuit

Prince Harry has been accused of "flouting" a court protocol in the way he filed a libel lawsuit against a U.K. tabloid in a fiery response from the newspaper's lawyers, Newsweek can reveal.

The Duke of Sussex is suing The Mail on Sunday for defamation over an article that suggested he publicly misrepresented the basis of a separate lawsuit he has launched against the U.K. government.

The newspaper has now accused Harry of ignoring guidelines for filing media lawsuits and described his lawyers' account of events as a "travesty."

Newsweek has approached representatives of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and The Mail on Sunday for comment.

Beyond the immediate issues, the case at the High Court in London shines a spotlight on Harry's strategy for dealing with an often hostile U.K. press.

Harry's Libel Lawsuit against 'The Mail on Sunday'

The tabloid—which lost a lawsuit brought by Meghan Markle over its publication of a letter she had sent her father— ran an article with the headline: "REVEALED: How Harry tried to keep his legal fight over bodyguards secret....then minutes after MoS broke story his PR machine tried to put positive spin on the dispute."

The dispute relates to Harry's judicial review of a Home Office decision to remove his police protection and a statement issued by the prince's legal team in January 2022. The statement said he "remains willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer."

The MoS accused Harry of creating the impression that the lawsuit filed against the government was aimed at enabling him to pay for a police team, when Home Office lawyers had suggested that offer was not made to them in the initial stages of the dispute.

The article read: "The revelations [in a Home Office filing] are a crushing rebuttal to Harry's initial public statement that implied he had always been willing to foot the bill."

The newspaper published its story online on February 19 and Harry filed his lawsuit four days later. His lawyers later submitted paperwork pointing out that he had made an offer to the royal family during a meeting at Sandringham in January 2020.

Harry's libel complaint said the newspaper's lawyers had been "baseless" and "offensive" in an email that accused him of a "continuing self-declared battle with anyone in the media who dares to publish anything about him which is less than flattering."

Court filings seen by Newsweek show just how rapidly attempts to resolve the dispute disintegrated in the hours after publication and how communications between the two sides remain hostile.

Harry's lawyers said the newspaper's response to his complaint "has been and
continues to be contemptuous" after they sent a February 20 email, timed at 11:29 a.m. asking for the online version of the article to be taken down.

At 2:04 p.m. that day, the newspaper replied with what the duke's lawyers described as "a holding response," but by February 23 had not followed up with any further communication.

At 4:01 p.m. that day, four days after the story was released online, Harry's lawyers filed their lawsuit, emailing a claim form to the newspaper.

Harry's team say the MoS then sent an "ill-tempered email" at 6:07 p.m. accusing the royal of "chill[ing] further discussion" and issuing the lawsuit for "media management purposes."

'The Mail on Sunday' Hits Back at Prince Harry

However, the MoS now says that account is "a travesty of what occurred" and a court protocol that governs media lawsuits gave them 14 days to reply.

A court filing, seen by Newsweek, read: "Despite his position, and access to expert legal advice, [Prince Harry] flouted the Protocol."

"On Wednesday 23 February 2022," it continued, "[Prince Harry] served and publicly announced proceedings without warning and before the Defendant had had any reasonable time to respond. This was in clear breach of the letter and spirit of the Protocol."

The filing added: "[Prince Harry] was not entitled to expect a full response within three working days of publication and his decision to issue a claim form without further notice was manifestly unreasonable."

As for Harry's reference to an "ill-tempered" email, the newspaper's lawyers wrote: "The email and letter referred to were an appropriate attempt to engage [Prince Harry] in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the Protocol and to draw his attention to the serious complaint the [MoS] had about his pre-action conduct. Those complaints have never been adequately answered."

The newspaper also doubled down on its account that the statements of Harry's legal representative were misleading and gave rise to a series of articles suggesting his judicial review was about the offer to pay for his own Metropolitan Police detail.

The 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."

The MoS court filing read: "The meeting was not attended by any Government official or representative. No official present was in attendance in the capacity of a representative of RAVEC [the Home Office's Royal and VIP Executive Committee, which made the policing decision].

"The Claimant did not know at the time that any official of The Royal Household was a member of RAVEC nor could he have believed that he was addressing them (if in attendance) in that capacity.

"The written agreement which followed the Sandringham Meeting does not refer to the Family Offer or contain any mention of [Prince Harry's] willingness to pay or contribute."

The civil lawsuit at the High Court continues.