The 46-day trial concerned allegations of misuse of private information and breach of confidence arising from alleged unlawful information gathering through a range of methods including the use of private investigators, ‘blagging’, phone hacking and corrupt payments. Associated Newspapers denied all wrongdoing.
Dismissing the claims, Mr Justice Nicklin said their cases often depended on inference. He rejected the argument that, simply because information was private and because Associated Newspapers could not positively explain how it had been sourced, the relevant article must have been unlawfully sourced.
NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan, of City Law School, said: ‘The outcome was no surprise.
‘As I wrote in NLJ months ago, had the defendant felt vulnerable it would have settled long ago. When I spent an afternoon at the hearing I was impressed by Antony White KC for the defendant. He was absolutely on top of his brief.
‘Both in pre-trial directions and during the trial, Mr Justice Nicklin warned the claimant team about trying to secure a wide ranging public inquiry. The trial could only address specific allegations of unlawful activity.’
Gideon Benaim, partner at Simkins, said: ‘It appears on an initial reading to be highly fact specific.
‘The court has concluded that the evidence before it didn’t meet the threshold required to prove that unlawful information gathering took place. As Mr Justice Nicklin said in his judgment, “suspicion, even understandable suspicion, is not proof”.
‘Most privacy cases will continue to depend on whether the information is private, whether publication was justified in the public interest and, ultimately, the evidence available to the court. I don't see this decision fundamentally changing that position.’
