Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, loses bid to have Mail on Sunday publisher's defence thrown out by judge

The Duke of Sussex has lost a bid to have The Mail on Sunday publisher's defence to his High Court libel claim thrown out by a judge.

Harry, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over a February 2022 article about his legal challenge against the Home Office following a decision to change his publicly funded security arrangements when visiting the UK.

The duke's lawyers have said the story, which claimed Harry "tried to keep details of his legal battle to reinstate his police protection secret from the public", was "an attack on his honesty and integrity" and would undermine his charity work and efforts to tackle misinformation online.

ANL is contesting the claim, arguing the article expressed an "honest opinion" and did not cause "serious harm" to his reputation. In March, the High Court heard the duke's bid to strike out ANL's "honest opinion" defence or grant judgment in his favour on it.

Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex. Picture: Getty Images

In a written ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin refused to "strike out" ANL's defence. The judge concluded the publisher had a "real prospect" of successfully showing at a trial that previous Harry press statements provided a "misleading" description of his case against the Home Office.

A hearing dealing with the consequences of Mr Justice Nicklin's decision is expected to be held on Tuesday.

The judgment comes a day after the High Court finished hearing Harry's claim the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which comes under the department's remit, to change the degree of his personal protection was "unlawful and unfair".

A different judge's decision in that case is expected at a later date.

Mr Justice Nicklin was previously told The Mail on Sunday first reported the duke was taking legal action against the Home Office in January last year. A press statement issued on Harry's behalf at the time said he and his family were "unable to return to his home" due to the lack of police protection needed in the UK.

The statement added: "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."

In a Home Office document prepared for a February 2022 preliminary hearing in Harry's security claim, the department said his offer of private funding "notably was not advanced to Ravec" at the time of the duke's visit in June 2021, or in any pre-action correspondence.

The Mail on Sunday article claimed this was "a crushing rebuttal to Harry's initial public statement that implied he had always been willing to foot the bill".

Justin Rushbrooke KC, for Harry, said in written submissions for the March hearing that ANL's defence to the libel claim "rests upon two provably false premises" relating to the press statement.

The first was a suggestion the duke had allegedly made a false claim over his willingness to pay for police protection in the UK, while the second was he had allegedly stated his case against the Home Office was over a refusal to let him pay for this security.