Prince wins leaked journals battle

Lawyers for the Mail on Sunday told a High Court judge it did not oppose injunctions sought by Charles banning publication of seven journals and requiring "delivery up" of the documents, plus an eighth journal, extracts from which have already been published.

But the newspaper was granted a "stay" preserving its position pending a decision by the Law Lords in a few weeks' time on whether it should have permission to appeal to the House of Lords against earlier crucial court rulings made in the case.

Prince Charles's legal team had argued that, following a Court of Appeal ruling that his privacy, confidentiality and copyright were breached when the Mail on Sunday published extracts from his 1997 journal about the handover of Hong Kong to mainland China, the newspaper had no excuse for continuing to hold onto seven other leaked journals to which the same principles applied.

The court had rejected the newspaper's claim that Charles' rights were overridden by freedom of expression and the public interest in publication.

"As everyone knows, what is interesting to the public is not necessarily in the public interest," said Hugh Tomlinson QC, for Charles.

The Mail on Sunday was now hoping to challenge the appeal judges' "overwhelming" decision in the Lords, he said.

Charles took action after publication of extracts from a diary entitled The Handover Of Hong Kong or The Great Chinese Takeaway in which he referred to members of the Chinese hierarchy as "appalling old waxworks".

The journals had been disclosed to the newspaper by Sarah Goodall, a disaffected former secretary in the prince's office, despite her having signed a confidentiality agreement. Charles intends to seek damages against the newspaper for its "unlawful acts".

Mr Justice Blackburne said Charles's claim for breach of confidence and privacy in the remaining seven journals was "fully established" and his copyright claim was "no less overwhelming".