Lady C tells Prince Harry ‘go into treatment’ as Duke forced to pay nearly £50k in libel battle: ‘Addiction to litigation!’

Lady C tells Prince Harry ‘go into treatment’ as Duke forced to pay nearly £50k in libel battle: ‘Addiction to litigation!’

Lady C tells Prince Harry 'go into treatment'

GB NEWS
Ben Chapman

By Ben Chapman


Published: 11/12/2023

- 22:35

Lady C called on Harry to 'cut his losses'

Prince Harry has been criticised for “attacking the free press” after he was forced to pay the Mail £50k in his libel battle.

Lady Colin Campbell blasted the Duke after he failed in a bid to have Associated Newspapers’ defence to his libel claim thrown out.


Mr Justice Nicklin says Harry must now pay the legal costs incurred by Associated in relation to that “summary judgment application”.

“Harry needs to not only cut his losses with this case, but with his attitude to the press”, she told GB News.

“Harry has an addiction to litigation. That is a legal category called vexatious litigant.

“Harry needs to go into treatment and realise it’s one thing if the press defames you, it’s quite another thing to scratch around looking for all sorts of things trying to attack a free press when you are supporting the right to a press to be free.

Prince HarryPrince HarryGetty

“Harry is anti-free speech. He called the First Amendment ‘bonkers’.

“Harry needs to grow up and realise, if he is going to behave as a Prince and claim to be one, he needs to start to act as one.”

The judge said, in a written case order released to journalists on Monday, that those costs should be assessed if they were not agreed.

But he said the duke should pay Associated £48,447 “on account” before the end of the year.

The judge’s order summarises his ruling on the summary judgment application, spells out his decision relating to costs and outlines a timetable for further hearings.

Harry is suing Associated over a February 2022 article about his legal challenge against the Home Office following a decision to change his publicly funded security arrangements when visiting the UK.

The duke’s lawyers have claimed the story “purported to reveal, in sensational terms” that information from court documents “contradicted public statements he had previously made about his willingness to pay for police protection for himself and his family whilst in the UK”.

They allege the article was “an attack on his honesty and integrity”, and would undermine his charity work and efforts to tackle misinformation online.

You may like