Prince Harry was wrongly accused of lying to the public, court hears

The Duke of Sussex was wrongly labelled a liar who tried to manipulate the public, the High Court heard on Thursday.

The Duke is suing the Mail on Sunday for libel, claiming that a report suggesting he had  tried to keep a legal fight about his bodyguards secret had caused him “substantial hurt, embarrassment and distress”.

The story suggested that, after the newspaper first broke the news that Prince Harry was seeking a judicial review of the Government’s decision not to provide police protection during his family’s visits to the UK, his PR machine ”tried to put positive spin on the dispute”.

Both parties appeared before Mr Justice Nicklin seeking the judge’s determination of the meaning of the offending article.

Justin Rushbrooke QC, for Prince Harry, said that the articles, in print and online, had claimed that the Duke “lied in his initial public statements to the effect that he had always been willing to pay for police protection in the UK” when, he insisted, the true position was that he had only made such an offer recently, following a visit to the UK last June.

He said the story suggested the Duke had “improperly and cynically tried to manipulate and confuse public opinion by authorising his ‘spin doctors’ to put out false and misleading statements about his willingness to pay for police protection immediately after the Mail on Sunday had revealed he was suing the Government”.

He added: “Allegations that a person has lied to the public, manipulated the public and attempted to keep secret that which ought properly to be public are serious ones which tend to lower him in the eyes of right-thinking people.

“It is submitted that the statements … are clearly defamatory.”

The publisher argued that the article was not defamatory and that the claim should therefore be struck out.

Andrew Caldecott QC, for Associated Newspapers, told the judge that far from accusing the Duke of lying about his offer to pay for his own security, the story was focused on the “PR spin on the dispute”.

He added: “The article does allege that the claimant’s PR team spun the story (or added a gloss unduly favourable to the claimant) which led to inaccurate reporting and confusion about the nature of the claim.

“It does not allege dishonesty against them.”

The judge will hand down his ruling on the preliminary issues at a later date.