DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Magnificent victory for the Mail… and Britain’s free Press

In a magnificent and comprehensive victory, the High Court dismissed a confection of lurid allegations that the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday had used illegal means to gather information.

This was a triumph for our journalism. But it was far more than that. It was a landmark moment for Britain’s free Press. Supported by campaign group Hacked Off and funded by former far-Right activist Max Mosley, the case was nothing less than a bid to destroy the Mail.

Had it succeeded, the implications for free expression would have been profound. It’s no exaggeration to say it would have paved the way for state regulation of newspapers, Hacked Off’s stated aim.

The claimants – Prince Harry, Elton John and his husband David Furnish, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, Baroness Lawrence and former Lib Dem leader Sir Simon Hughes – alleged that stories about them in the Mail had been obtained by phone hacking or other illegal means.

More than 40 journalists of the highest integrity had to defend themselves against allegations of illicit and/or criminal behaviour – some dating back decades.

Following an 11-week trial and with total costs estimated at a staggering £50million, Mr Justice Nicklin found there was not a shred of evidence to back up these claims. He rejected every single allegation.

But even though this was a case built almost entirely on supposition and innuendo, it had real-world consequences. For four years, dozens of Mail journalists have lived under a cloud of unjustified suspicion and Associated Newspapers, our parent group, has expended vast amounts of time and resources having to prove our innocence.

We successfully defended every story. It was a painstaking process, but it had to be done. The Mail has a long and proud reputation for accurate and courageous journalism. We guard that reputation jealously.

The claimants – including Prince Harry – alleged that stories about them in the Mail had been obtained by phone hacking or other illegal means. The High Court dismissed the allegations

The judge was generous in his praise for the Mail’s witnesses, commenting on their truthfulness and candour. Daily Mail Royal Editor Rebecca English was described as ‘impressive and honest’, and former associate editor Stephen Wright as ‘a truthful witness’.

Mr Justice Nicklin was less complimentary about some of the claimants’ witnesses.

Though not finding him to have been ‘generally dishonest’, the judge said that in one specific instance, former Hacked Off executive director Dr Evan Harris had made ‘an improper and dishonest proposal’.

‘The overall position is that I cannot rely upon Dr Harris’ account unless it is corroborated by contemporaneous documentary material,’ he added.

Press freedom is an ancient liberty but is increasingly fragile. Many newspapers are struggling financially as they compete with an unregulated internet, which is riddled with misinformation and falsehoods.

Meanwhile, organisations such as Hacked Off would love to see the Press neutered by state regulation, which would seriously limit journalists’ ability to expose wrongdoing and speak truth to power.

Unlike social media, newspapers are already bound by strict laws on defamation, contempt and data protection. They are also subject to independent regulation by IPSO, so to load them with further regulatory burdens would be perverse and dangerous.

Yesterday’s ruling was a great victory, but we must never lower our guard. Freedom of the Press enshrines the right to criticise and oppose. It is a keystone of our democracy which must be constantly defended against those who seek to crush it.