The Duke of Sussex, has abandoned his libel claim against the Mail on Sunday newspaper, just hours before a court deadline.

Lawyers acting on his behalf had been due to hand over a list of documents today (19 January), but instead a spokesperson confirmed that the claim had been withdrawn and the prince would instead now focus on “the safety of his family and his legal case against the Home Office”.

Prince Harry had brought about the action over an article relating to his publicly-funded security arrangements when visiting the UK, after controversially stepping away from his senior royal duties.

A three-day trial had been scheduled to be held later this year, beginning sometime between 17 May and 31 July.

However, in December 2023 the 39-year-old duke lost a major part of the judicial battle, after his legal team failed dramatically to persuade a judge to dismiss an important strand of the Associated Newspapers’ defence.

Mr Justice Nicklin stated that he believed the newspaper group’s argument that the article was “honest opinion” and had a “real prospect” of success.

The retraction of the claim will prove to be an expensive exercise for the prince, as it will leave him facing overall legal costs of up to three quarters of a million pounds.

This case is separate to the Harry’s claims of unlawful obtaining information against Associated Newspapers, which are due to go to trial later in the year.

Huge frustration inevitable

The prince had challenged the Home Office over changes to his publicly-funded security, which was effectively withdrawn following his move to the United States.

By discontinuing the case, it will be both frustrating and slightly humiliating for the duke, as his argument was that The Mail on Sunday article, published in February 2022, had falsely suggested he had “lied” and “cynically” tried to manipulate public opinion.

The headline of the newspaper’s piece said the he had “tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret” and in response he had his lawyers sue for libel, insisting that it was “an attack on his honesty and integrity”.

Standing firm

The Mail on Sunday continued to contest the claim and firmly stood by its journalism. They produced evidence that suggested that Harry was not actually offering to pay for his own security – which is the part of a separate case – but had in actual fact, argued that he needed a job first, writing in an email: “we couldn’t afford private security until we were able to earn.”

This however, contradicted the Duke’s PR advisers version, that was briefed to the media which insisted that he had offered “to pay personally for UK police protection” and “remained willing to do so”.

Judge having none of it

Shillings, who are Harry’s expensively assembled top tier law firm, were so confident of success they even approached the judge in the proceedings, Mr Justice Nicklin, and asked him to have the case ruled in favour of the Duke of Sussex, without it even having a trial.

That request was dismissed by the judge, who indicated that he felt the newspaper had genuine prospects of being able to demonstrate that statements issued on behalf of Prince Harry, were indeed misleading.

He went on to say that he could see how an honest person could have held the opinion that the claimant (Harry) was responsible for attempting to “confuse the public as to the true position”.

Expensive climb down

As a legal duty in the processing of cases such as these, it is normal practice for both parties to disclose to the other side any relevant documents, and it is these that Prince Harry’s team were to produce until the last minute change of heart.

That means he will have to fork out for the newspaper’s costs, which will be in the region of £250,000. That is alongside his own lawyers’ fees, which will not see much change out of half a million pounds, leaving a total legal bill probably in excess of £750,000. 

On top of that, the fact that he has withdrawn now represents quite a climb down, and basically leaves the public to draw their own conclusions.