By Juliet Shaw As Prince Harry continues his court battle with the British media, Associated Newspapersawaits the result of its own case. The Duke of Sussex’s action against the publisher of theDaily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Mail Online is being considered by Mr Justice Nicklin, with adecision expected in the coming weeks.This high-profile case has the potential to expose a rotten culture at the core of the UKsmost complained-about newspaper publisher. The judge, who heard arguments from both sides in March, will decide whether the claims brought by Harry, together with Baroness Doreen Lawrence OBE, Sir Elton John and David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, and ex Lib Dem MP Sir Simon Hughes, should proceed to trial.And this time, the case won’t just decide whether a headline-grabbing article breached thelaw, as in the successful claim brought by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Neither is it a self-serving action to protect the privacy of rich celebrities.If Mr Justice Nicklin dismisses the application to strike out the claim, the trial will examinethe practices of Associated Newspapers and make public its treatment of people who findthemselves on the wrong side of a story.Shocking allegationsCourt documents show that the seven claimants allege a shocking list of unlawful practices.

They include: “… illegally intercepting voicemail messages, listening into live landline calls, obtaining private information (such as itemised phone bills or medical records) by deception or ‘blagging’, using private investigators to commit these unlawful information gathering acts on their behalf, and even commissioning the breaking and entry into private property.”

Associated Newspapers says the claims are “unsubstantiated and highly defamatory,” and“based on no credible evidence.” The publisher has applied to have the case struck out,saying that the claims - which cover allegations as far back as 1993 - are time barred underthe six-year statute of limitations. “The claimants have failed to show that they have a real prospect of discharging their burden at trial and the court should not hesitate to dismiss these stale claims at an early stage, thereby avoiding what would otherwise be a considerable waste of time, costs and the court’s resources,” the publisher’s barrister, Adrian Beltrami KC, argued in written submissions to the court.Deny and attackThose of us unfortunate enough to have been entangled with Mail titles know that it’s part oftheir modus operandi to repeatedly deny wrongdoing until the claimant gives up, or to throw money at every legal stalling tactic available - knowing most people are highly unlikely to have the same resources.As someone who has been through this process first hand, I can confirm that it is stressful,exhausting and intimidating. Even without the legal fees – I represented myself – there is ahuge price to pay in terms of time and the financial, physical and emotional resourcesrequired to bring a claim to court.In one astonishing case spanning 25 years, Mr Justice Nicklin described AssociatedNewspaper’s arguments as a “comprehensive and wide-ranging attack” on businessmanMichael Ward. In a scathing judgement, Mr Justice Nicklin noted: “Mr Ward, the Claimant, is acting in person. He has dealt, admirably, with a further comprehensive attack on his statement of case, renewed by a new Leading Counsel instructed by the Defendant. Save in the limitedrespects identified below, this further attack has been unsuccessful.”Ineffective regulationThe complaints-handler IPSO doesn’t provide much comfort for claimants.In 2021, a total of 971 complaints were made to IPSO about Associated Newspapers titles.Mail Online topped the list with 665, the Daily Mail received 238 and the Mail on Sundayhad 68. For context, The Sun received the third highest number of complaints against asingle title, with 176.Of all the complaints, IPSO upheld only six. However, this doesn’t mean that 968 complaintswere spurious and unwarranted. It simply means that the odds are heavily stacked againstthe complainant. IPSO’s rulings are decided by its Complaints Committee - half of whom are current or former newspaper editors. The committee decides whether the words complained about are in breach of the Editor’s Code of Practice.One-sided processThe Code, developed by a committee of 10 editors and three independent laypeople, setsout 16 clauses for editors to abide by, including accuracy, privacy, and the use ofharassment or clandestine devices to gather information. It also provides for public interestreporting, in which cases breaches of the clauses may be justified by editors.The chairman of IPSO, Lord Faulks, says of its regulatory supervision:

In applying the Editors’ Code, we endeavour to strike a balance between the interest of those with justified complaints and the interests of a free, vigorous but accountable press. We hope this approach has the support of all political parties, and of the general public.

In 2021, IPSO received a total of 14,355 complaints. Only 461 of these were investigated aspotential breaches of the Editor’s Code, with just 88 complaints upheld. With a success rateof 0.61 per cent, complainants may be forgiven for thinking this system does not provide thefair balance Lord Faulks claims.Means and motiveThis is why the claims brought by Harry and the other claimants are significant: they havethe means and the motive to see this through to the bitter end and hold AssociatedNewspapers to account. This case has the potential to expose a widespread culture of disdain for readers and the public - and this time, no amount of money in the legal budget can make it disappear.@JulietShawComms is a writer and communications strategist