Two former justice secretaries have publicly criticised Prince Harry following his harsh criticism of a High Court judge’s ruling on a prominent privacy case last week. The dispute arose after Mr Justice Nicklin ruled in favour of Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, in a lengthy judgment addressing allegations brought by the Duke of Sussex and six other notable claimants, including Baroness Lawrence and Sir Elton John.

Following the judgment, Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence released a joint statement condemning the ruling as “a complete and obvious whitewash,” adding that “the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.” The statement implied that the judgment protected the newspaper unjustly, a position that drew considerable attention given Harry’s continuing royal status as fifth in line to the throne.

The reaction to Harry’s comments has been largely critical among legal experts and former government officials, who stress the importance of respect for the judiciary. Alex Chalk KC, who recently served as Conservative justice secretary, described the duke’s remarks as “over the top, personal and unacceptable.” Chalk underscored that judges swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign, and that Harry, given his constitutional role, should recognize the significance of maintaining judicial respect.

Similarly, Sir Robert Buckland KC, another former Tory justice secretary, labelled the tone of Harry’s statement inappropriate. Buckland suggested that Harry could have expressed disappointment in a more measured way, such as stating he was “deeply disappointed by the court’s decision” and would be “taking advice as to his options.” Buckland also pointed out concerns raised by Baroness Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, regarding threats to judicial safety, emphasizing the need for public figures and royal family members to exercise restraint amid rising risks faced by judges.

Lord Garnier KC, a former Conservative solicitor-general, offered a detailed defence of the judge’s ruling, highlighting that Mr Justice Nicklin’s decision encompassed “several hundred pages and about 2,000 paragraphs of analysis, findings of fact, recitations of uncontested facts and conclusions.” Garnier noted that while the outcome was “disagreeable” to the claimants, their legal action was “a hugely risky venture and it did not succeed.” He also acknowledged the frustration of the claimants, who not only lost the case but may have inadvertently boosted the reputation of British media institutions, despite their complex histories.

In response to the criticism, a spokesman for Prince Harry confirmed that the duke “stands by every word of his statement,” maintaining his position on the ruling. The controversy underscores the delicate balance between public commentary, the independence of the judiciary, and the responsibilities of those connected to Britain’s constitutional framework.