Prince Harry’s multiple lawsuits could cost millions even if he wins, but if he loses them all he could be left with a bill of up to $20 million, a lawyer told Newsweek.
The Duke of Sussex lost his first lawsuit on Tuesday, raising questions about the future of his remaining five cases. A High Court judge ruled he had no grounds to sue the U.K. Home Office over its decision that he could not pay privately to reinstate his police bodyguards. Harry was stripped of his Metropolitan Police security team after he stepped down as a working royal and has been campaigning to get them back.
But the case was just one of six that have been running at London’s Royal Courts of Justice, which raises the prospect of an eye-watering legal bill should the rest collapse too.
VICTORIA JONES/AFP via Getty Images
Prince Harry’s Legal Costs
Mark Stephens, a U.K.-based attorney at Howard Kennedy, told Newsweek Harry may be out of pocket even if he wins, but if he loses all the cases, the bill could be somewhere between $15 million and $20 million—more than the price of his California mansion.
“I think Harry has taken it upon himself to sponsor the London legal village, and as a lawyer I welcome that. Whether it’s prudent is another matter,” Stephens said.
He continued: “People are entitled to go to court, but whether he wins some or all of these cases he’s going to come out net down because you never recover, even if you win, 100 percent of your costs.
“You might get 60 or 70 percent. So let’s say he’s spending somewhere between £6 million [$7.5 million] and £10 million [$12.5 million] on these cases. He’s going to recover £6 million and he will be left with a bill for the rest.
“That’s if he wins the lot of them. If he loses them, he could be in for paying another £6 million to the other side.”
Even at the lower end of Stephens’ estimate, that would leave Harry having to pay $15 million, more than the $14.7 million he and Meghan Markle paid for their mansion in Montecito, California. It has a reported 16 bathrooms, as well as expansive grounds, a gym, a spa, a games room, an arcade and a tennis court.
Prince Harry’s Six Lawsuits
The cost for his first court defeat will be modest since the Home Office has so far quoted only around £8,000 (a little under $10,000).
However, that case was always going to be the cheapest, with much of the preparatory work falling within a separate lawsuit he has brought—also against the Home Office—over the same issue.
That original case is ongoing, and a Freedom of Information Act request by The Sun in February showed the government’s costs alone had already reached $360,000 by that month—before the full hearing has even begun.
Harry is hoping to force the Home Office to reconsider its decision to take his police protection team away. But past filings by government lawyers, seen by Newsweek, have been highly dismissive of the case. They say: “The public purse should not have to bear the cost of the conduct of this litigation and a claim which ought not to have been brought at all.”
Harry also has three ongoing lawsuits alleging phone hacking and other illegal practices at three of Britain’s biggest newspaper groups: Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers, Associated Newspapers (publisher of the Daily Mail) and Mirror Group Newspapers.
To win in court, the prince must persuade the judges to extend the cutoff for the cases, which are more than six years old.
In early June, he will enter the witness box for the first time, exposing himself to hostile questioning by lawyers for the Mirror Group, a first for a royal family member in modern times.
“I think with any claimant we are always cautious to take only the very best cases, and often legal recourse is not always the best way to get any remedy you seek,” Stephens said.
He continued: “You’re putting yourself in as a witness, and the purpose of the king’s counsel [senior lawyer] on the other side is to punch holes in your credibility and to make you look like a fool.
“That’s why it’s not since the 1890s that a member of the royal family has gone into the witness box. In that case, the royal was only a witness. This is the only time a royal has gone in who was both the claimant and the prime witness,” he said.
The ongoing Mirror Group trial alone is listed for six weeks. Stephens said Harry’s costs could hit £500,000 (around $620,000) a week, of which “he will probably only recover £300,000” (around $370,000) if successful.
“So he’s going to be down £200,000 [around $250,000] a week over six weeks even if he wins. That’s another Netflix deal, isn’t it? He’s basically taken the Netflix money and put it all on red.”
Harry also has a libel lawsuit against The Mail on Sunday over, perhaps ironically, a news story about one of his other lawsuits.
The headline read: “REVEALED: How Harry tried to keep his legal fight over bodyguards secret….then minutes after MoS broke story his PR machine tried to put positive spin on the dispute.”
The newspaper suggested Harry had not made his offer to pay for his own police protection to the Home Office before filing his lawsuit, while Harry’s lawyers argued that he made the offer to his family in January 2020.
Kevin Mazur/Getty Images Ms. Foundation for Women
‘Reputationally Damaged’ Even if Successful?
The potential impact on Harry may also be measured in reputational damage, as well as the stress and anxiety associated with high-profile, high-stakes lawsuits.
In Netflix’s Harry & Meghan series, he said he believed Meghan experienced a miscarriage in July 2020 due to stress from a separate lawsuit against The Mail on Sunday over a private letter she sent to her father.
Experts have said there is no proven link between stress and an increased risk of miscarriage. If Harry is correct, however, it is difficult to imagine a more permanent and devastating consequence than a life that could have been but now is not, thanks to a case Meghan went on to win.
“One cannot help feel that even if he is vindicated by the courts he will be both financially and reputationally damaged by the sheer number of cases that are being brought,” Stephens said. “One of the challenges is that you don’t want to bite off more than you can chew.”
He went on: “It’s a very American approach to assume ‘You know, I’ve got the biggest lawyer and I’m gonna draw my lawyer on you.’ Lawyers aren’t the answer to everything. Sometimes they’re the problem.”
Meanwhile, U.S. royal expert Kristen Meinzer told Newsweek‘s The Royal Report podcast she hopes to see Harry’s family step in to help him with the police protection matter, though this currently appears to be a remote prospect.
“So far, they’ve had a pretty good track record with the lawsuits, up until now they have,” she said. “But I just really wish that Charles or some other member of the royal family would step up here. And maybe they could solve this if they were to step in and maybe this lawsuit then wouldn’t even be necessary, but I don’t think that they’re going to, let’s be real. Charles is not going to step up and defend Harry.”
Another Funding Option for Legal Costs?
One way Harry might offset his costs is if he is receiving money from the estate of controversial press reform campaigner Max Mosley, who died in 2021. But there is no indication right now that he is.
Harry is not the only one suing over phone hacking, and some of the other claimants will not have his financial resources.
“They may be being funded by the Max Mosley trust. We don’t know,” Stephens said. “The purpose of the hacking cases against The Sun, the Mail and the Mirror [is] supposed to be about learning the truth rather than the financial compensation, because no amount of financial compensation that he will realistically recover will fill the gap in costs that he will otherwise achieve.”
However, any decision to take money from Mosley could draw criticism if it became public knowledge. He was the son of the notorious British Fascist Oswald Mosely, and in his youth he belonged to one of his father’s far-right political parties, the Union Movement.
An election leaflet for one of its candidates, marked “published by Max Mosley,” read: “Coloured immigration threatens your children’s health.”
In 2018, Mosley was asked about it by Channel 4 News and said he had “no reason to apologize to anyone.”
He added: “This was a statement in a leaflet which I am not even sure is genuine, which would never reflect my view. It would not reflect my view then or now because I simply wouldn’t dream of insulting people.”
The original leaflet and Mosley’s response when asked about it jar considerably with Harry and Meghan’s perspectives on racism and unconscious bias.
Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on Twitter at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek‘s The Royals Facebook page.
Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We’d love to hear from you.
—