He ruled Friday that a normal reader would understand from the article that the Duke was “responsible for public statements” stating that he was “willing to pay for police protection in the UK” and the government had refused “while the true position, as evidenced by documents submitted in the court proceedings was that he made the offer of payment only after the proceedings had begun”.
The judge ruled that the suggestion in the article that the prince was “responsible for trying to mislead and confuse the public about the true position, which was ironic given that he was now playing a public role in addressing” misinformation'” a statement said.
Judgment could make it a ‘harder road’ for Prince’s legal team
Mark Stephens, a defamation lawyer, said the ruling that it was an opinion gave the paper a defense and meant they were “more likely to win” on that point.
He noted that the judge also found a “less serious” meaning than the duke claimed, as he ruled the article accused him of “spiding” rather than lying.
Mr Stephens added: “Harry was the winner in this verdict, but the meaning the judge found was ultimately closer to that of the paper.
“I think this verdict will make it a harder road for his legal team.”
The Duke’s claim against the government over issues relating to his security is still pending and on Thursday his lawyers asked the Supreme Court to authorize a full judicial review. A decision will be made at a later date as to whether this claim can continue.