Charles claims victory in Hong Kong diary case

· High court rules Mail on Sunday wrong to publish
· Prince must go to court to stop further revelations

Prince Charles's advisers were claiming victory last night in his legal battle with Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Mail on Sunday, after a high court judgment that his copyright and confidentiality had been infringed when the newspaper published extracts from his private 1997 journal about the handover of Hong Kong.

Officials, led by the prince's private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, could barely contain their jubilation at the outcome of the case after three days of highly public hearings last month. They had embarked on the strategy despite the risk that, had the judge ruled against them, the prince might have had to appear in the witness box during a full trial.

Summoning journalists to a triumphal briefing at Clarence House, Sir Michael said: "The last thing we wanted to do was to take legal proceedings against Associated Newspapers, but we have won on all the important points of principle ... It was a matter of principle over a stolen document being made public."

In the course of the hearing into the case three weeks ago, the prince had endured the public humiliation of a witness statement by his former press secretary Mark Bolland on behalf of the newspaper, stating that Charles saw himself as a political "dissident" because of the views he expressed in letters to ministers.

The high court had been asked to decide whether the prince's claims that his copyright had been infringed and his confidence breached should be heard in front of a jury at a full trial or could be dealt with summarily by the judge.

Yesterday, the judgment concluded that there was no need for a trial. Handing down a 193-paragraph judgment, Mr Justice Blackburne dismissed the newspaper's arguments that in publishing extracts from the prince's journal last November it was legitimately publicising his views on matters of public importance and demonstrating the heir to the throne's interference in political affairs.

The 3,000-word journal, handwritten by the prince on his way back from the Hong Kong handover nearly nine years ago under the heading "The Great Chinese Takeaway", was one of eight such reports written after foreign trips in the 1990s that were passed to the newspaper by a disaffected former secretary in the prince's office. Copies of the journals had been circulated privately to the prince's friends.

The newspaper's report had highlighted his view of the Chinese leadership as "appalling old waxworks" and included mild criticisms of government ministers, though not the prince's flattering assessment of Tony Blair.

In a small gesture towards the newspaper the judge ruled that he could not make a decision on the remaining seven, so far unpublished, journals.

Although the judgment concluded that arguments over whether they could be published must go forward to trial, the prince's lawyers insisted that, after the ruling on the Hong Kong journal, similar findings in the case of the other journals - which are presumably less newsworthy - would be a formality. The newspaper has given an undertaking not to publish them until after any appeal.

Mr Justice Blackburne was scathing about the newspaper's public interest defence: "There is nothing in the articles to suggest that his conduct is being assessed and a judgment made about it ... The most that is said in the articles is that 'the memoirs ... provide a fascinating insight into how (the claimant) discreetly contributes to the formation of foreign policy.' The conclusion from all of this can only be that the contribution that the ... journal makes to any public debate ... is at best minimal."

The historian and royal biographer Robert Lacey said last night: "The outcome of the hearing is a curious success for the prince, against the odds. There were a few eyebrows raised about the risk he was taking but he has been vindicated. He seems to have confirmed the principle that what was meant to be private remains private.

"The phone-ins cannot find anyone to speak out against him today and in support of the newspapers. Prince Charles appears to be carving out this creaky role in national life and people seem to be growing fond of his outbursts and gaffes."

In a statement, Associated Newspapers said it was "disappointed" by the judge's refusal to allow a full hearing: "We believe our report and this legal action both raise very serious questions about the constitutional role of the heir to the throne and the freedom of the press. It cannot be legitimate for the prince to claim the right to engage in political controversy and at the same time deny the public the right to know that he is doing so."

Sir Michael insisted that the prince's journals would be placed in the royal archive, though not made available until after his death. He said: "History is best served cold in many ways. Journalism hot, history cold."

Straight sets to Clarence House - at a price

Robert Thomson, editor of the Times
"I don't think this is one of the landmark cases of our time. It is of public interest because of the involvement of Prince Charles. Whether he should have brought the action in the first place, thus making public further details he claimed were private, is a separate issue. But I don't think there is any less freedom of the press today than there was yesterday."

Max Hastings, author and journalist for the Daily Mail and the Guardian
"I would have had enormous sympathy if this case had involved the Queen, because she has always gone to great pains to ensure that her private opinions remain so. But Prince Charles decided a long time ago to exploit publicity when it suited his interests. His views have been widely broadcast and he has chosen to selectively leak information to the press. He's tried to be this semi-public, semi-private figure, dancing between the two as it suits him, and I don't think it washes."

David Engel, partner and media specialist, Addleshaw Goddard
"It's a straight sets victory for Clarence House. It's not fair to describe it as a bad day for freedom of the press. It's simply saying publication of a private journal of the Prince of Wales is not genuinely in the public interest. Even though the heir to the throne is in the public eye, he's still entitled to his own zone of privacy. This ruling reflects the current legal position: just because someone is a public figure, it doesn't automatically mean his or her private life is fair game for the media."

Max Clifford, PR adviser
"It might give him a bit more protection, but it weakens his position. He wants to have influence, but he doesn't want to be open about it. It's not going to endear him to Fleet Street. He's gone from being terrible to being OK in the eyes of the press over the past five or six years. This could undermine that - he may have won the battle but he's losing the war. Having a better working relationship with the press is more important. The problem is that he's surrounded by sycophants and the world's changed."

· Interviews by Owen Gibson

Today's best video

Today in pictures