Prince Harry's years-long campaign against Britain's tabloid press has taken another blow, with a prominent UK politician claiming the Duke of Sussex's failed lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday may have actually strengthened the newspapers' reputations.
Harry and six other high-profile claimants sued Associated Newspapers over allegations of historic unlawful information gathering, including phone hacking and other illegal newsgathering practices. However, the case ended in defeat on July 7, marking another legal setback in Harry's ongoing battle with the British media.
Now, Lord Edward Garnier, a barrister and member of the House of Lords, has suggested the lawsuit ultimately worked in the tabloids' favor.
"It seems to me that the claimants embarked, for whatever reason, on a hugely risky venture and it did not succeed," Garnier told The Daily Telegraph. He argued that the case gave journalists accused by Harry an opportunity to publicly defend themselves, adding that the proceedings had "burnished" the reputation of the newspapers rather than damaging them.
One of the trial's most talked-about moments came when Mail on Sunday editor-at-large Charlotte Griffiths presented Facebook messages she had exchanged with Harry after attending a shooting weekend with the prince in 2011. The messages reportedly showed Harry affectionately referring to Griffiths as "sugar" and saying he missed their "movie snuggles"-a revelation that generated widespread media attention during the proceedings.
The defeat is the latest challenge in what has been a difficult period for the Duke of Sussex. Harry has made reforming the British press one of his defining public causes, arguing that unethical reporting practices have deeply affected both his own life and that of his late mother, Princess Diana.
While Harry has previously secured victories in other legal actions against British newspaper publishers, this latest ruling has provided fresh ammunition for critics who argue that not every claim has succeeded-and that this particular courtroom battle may have produced the opposite result of what he intended.
Whether the comments from Lord Garnier gain broader traction remains to be seen, but they add another chapter to Harry's long-running and deeply personal conflict with the British press.
