By Michael Holden and Sam Tobin
LONDON, March 17 (Reuters) – Lawyers for Britain’s Prince Harry testified in a London court on Friday that publisher Associated Newspapers had no viable defense to his libel suit over an article about his security measures, in the goal of winning the case without a trial.
Henry, the youngest son of England’s King Charles, sued the Associated Newspapers last year over an article in its Mail on Sunday newspaper claiming he only offered to pay for police protection after taking legal action against the British government.
The article claimed that Enrique, 38, had tried to keep details of his lawsuit with the government secret over his state-funded protection – which was withdrawn after stepping down from royal duties in 2020 – and that his advisers had tried to put a positive spin on it. on it in the press.
The High Court in London ruled in July that the Mail article, which accused Harry of trying to mislead the public, was defamatory, paving the way for him to take legal action against one of the biggest publishers of British media.
Harry’s lawyers told Judge Matthew Nicklin on Friday that he offered to pay for police protection during a crisis meeting with the late Queen Elizabeth, her father and brother Prince William at the royal Sandringham estate in January 2020.
Justin Rushbrooke said Associated Newspapers had no factual basis for its defense and asked the court to enter summary judgment in Henry’s favor without a trial.
However, lawyers for Associated Newspapers said they would rely on a strong “honest opinion” argument, and that Enrique’s claim to win the case without a trial was “completely without merit”.
Andrew Caldecott, a lawyer for the publisher, also argued in court papers that the article did not cause serious damage to Harry’s reputation, a requirement of English libel law. (Reporting by Michael Holden and Sam Tobin Editing in Spanish by Javier López de Lérida)