Judge Rules against Prince Harry in Early Stage of Libel Case against Daily Mail Publisher

FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, attend the sitting volleyball finals at the 2023 Invictus Games, an international multi-sport event for injured soldiers, in Duesseldorf, Germany September 15, 2023. REUTERS/Piroschka Van De Wouw/File Photo/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, attend the sitting volleyball finals at the 2023 Invictus Games, an international multi-sport event for injured soldiers, in Duesseldorf, Germany September 15, 2023. REUTERS/Piroschka Van De Wouw/File Photo/File Photo
TT
20

Judge Rules against Prince Harry in Early Stage of Libel Case against Daily Mail Publisher

FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, attend the sitting volleyball finals at the 2023 Invictus Games, an international multi-sport event for injured soldiers, in Duesseldorf, Germany September 15, 2023. REUTERS/Piroschka Van De Wouw/File Photo/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, attend the sitting volleyball finals at the 2023 Invictus Games, an international multi-sport event for injured soldiers, in Duesseldorf, Germany September 15, 2023. REUTERS/Piroschka Van De Wouw/File Photo/File Photo

Prince Harry lost a preliminary round Friday in his libel case against the publisher of the Daily Mail tabloid over an article that said he tried to hide his efforts to retain publicly funded protection in the UK after giving up his status as a working member of the royal family.
A London judge said the Duke of Sussex failed to knock out Associated Newspaper Ltd.’s defense that its article reflected an honest opinion. A hearing is scheduled Tuesday to discuss the consequences of the ruling.
Justice Matthew Nicklin said in that ruling that “it is not fanciful that the Defendant will be successful, at trial.” He scheduled a hearing Tuesday in the High Court to discuss the consequences of the ruling.
The ruling comes just a day after another judge concluded three days of arguments — mostly behind closed doors — over whether the government unfairly stripped Harry of his security detail after he and his family moved to the US in 2020.
Harry, 39, the younger son of King Charles III, is challenging the government's decision to provide security to him on a case-by-case basis when he visits Britain. Harry has said hostility toward him and his wife on social media and relentless news media hounding threatens their safety.
The Mail on Sunday and Mail Online published an article in February 2022 about the issue headlined: “How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret ... then — just minutes after the story broke — his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute.”
Harry claims the article was “fundamentally inaccurate” and the newspaper libeled him when it suggested he lied in his initial public statements about his case challenging the government.
Associated Newspapers argued the article expressed an “honest opinion" and did not seriously harm Harry's reputation.
Nicklin previously ruled the article was defamatory but had not considered whether the story was accurate or in the public interest.
The government, meanwhile, has defended its decision to withdraw full protection for Harry because he stepped down from his role as a senior working member of the family. It said he was treated fairly and provided with security occasionally when he visits.
Another judge earlier this year shot down Harry's request to privately reimburse London’s police force to guard him when he comes to town. A government lawyer had argued officers shouldn’t be used as “private bodyguards for the wealthy.”
The dispute with the Mail is one of four lawsuits Harry has pending against publishers of British tabloids in his ongoing battle with the press.
His three other cases allege that journalists at the Mail, the Daily Mirror and the Sun used unlawful means, such as deception, phone hacking or hiring private investigators, to try to dig up dirt about him.



Trump Renews Call for End to Seasonal Clock Changes

 A bird flies in silhouette as the sun rises over the Atlantic ocean in Lido Beach, New York, US, April 10, 2025. (Reuters)
A bird flies in silhouette as the sun rises over the Atlantic ocean in Lido Beach, New York, US, April 10, 2025. (Reuters)
TT
20

Trump Renews Call for End to Seasonal Clock Changes

 A bird flies in silhouette as the sun rises over the Atlantic ocean in Lido Beach, New York, US, April 10, 2025. (Reuters)
A bird flies in silhouette as the sun rises over the Atlantic ocean in Lido Beach, New York, US, April 10, 2025. (Reuters)

President Donald Trump on Friday repeated his call for an end to the "costly" custom of moving clocks back one hour every autumn, which he said was imposing an unnecessary financial burden on the United States.

"The House and Senate should push hard for more Daylight at the end of a day," Trump urged the US Congress in a Truth Social post.

"Very popular and, most importantly, no more changing of the clocks, a big inconvenience and, for our government, A VERY COSTLY EVENT!!!"

The summer clock, known as Daylight Saving Time, was adopted by the federal government during World War I but was unpopular with farmers rushing to get produce to morning markets, and was quickly abolished.

Many states experimented with their own versions, but it wasn't reintroduced nationwide until 1967.

The issue has become a pet subject for Trump, who appealed in December for more light in the evenings, but he has at times appeared confused by the terminology.

The demand would mean a permanent change to DST, whereas in December he pledged to get Republicans working on the opposite goal -- abandoning DST.

"The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time, which has a small but strong constituency, but shouldn't," he said then.

In 2022 the Senate, then controlled by Democrats, advanced a bill that would bring an end to the twice-yearly changing of clocks, in favor of a "new, permanent standard time."

The Sunshine Protection Act called for moving permanently to DST, to usher in brighter evenings, and fewer journeys home in the dark for school children and office workers.

The bill never made it to then-president Joe Biden's desk, as it was not taken up in the Republican-led House.

The bill was introduced in 2021 by a Republican, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who is now Trump's secretary of state. He said studies had shown a permanent DST could benefit the economy.

Either way, changing to one permanent time would put an end to Americans pushing their clocks forward in the spring, then setting them back an hour in the fall.

Colloquially the practice is referred to as "spring forward, fall back."

The clamor has increased in recent years to make DST permanent especially among politicians and lobbyists from the Northeast, where frigid conditions are normal in the early winter mornings.

Rubio said the United States sees an increase in heart attacks and road accidents in the week that follows the changing of the clocks.

Any changes would be unlikely to affect Hawaii and most of Arizona, the Navajo Nation, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, which do not spring forward in summer.