Piers Morgan threatens to sue Earl Spencer
by: Tom Double
October 7, 2026
Having recently been sued for libel, Piers Morgan now claims that he has been libelled by Earl Spencer in his recently released memoir, ‘Swan Song: Diana, my sister’.
Amongst the allegedly defamatory meanings that Morgan’s lawyers claim the book conveys, is the claim that Morgan authorised the publication of extremely intrusive photographs of Princess Diana, covertly taken in a private place, and that he deliberately did so to boost newspaper sales, showing neither remorse nor shame in the aftermath.
Morgan claims that this allegation is manifestly false because the images in question were published by the Sunday Mirror and the Daily Mirror on 7 and 8 November 1994, when he was a journalist at The Sun. Morgan did not become Editor of the Daily Mail until October 1995, nearly two years later.
On 22 September 2026, the day on which the book was published, Spencer publicly acknowledged that it inaccurately suggested that Morgan was involved in the publication of the intrusive photographs, and apologised for this error.
Lawyers for the book’s publisher, Penguin Books Limited, have denied liability, and said that Earl Spencer had reviewed and approved their initial response to Morgan’s lawyers. It is not known whether Spencer has now instructed his own lawyers. The denial of liability seems to be heavily predicated on the prompt retraction and apology, thereby giving rise to an argument that Morgan will not be able to demonstrate that he has been caused, or is likely to have been caused, serious harm to his reputation (as is required by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013)
A prompt and fulsome apology and retraction can theoretically eradicate or at least significantly mitigate any unfavourable imputation conveyed by a defamatory statement, meaning that a claimant cannot demonstrate serious harm (as happened in Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 ), but the primary focus in such circumstances will be on whether readers of a libellous statement also saw the apology. Morgan has a very substantial online following and publicised Spencer’s apology himself, thus suggesting that many readers of the book will already be aware that the allegation regarding the photographs is false. On the other hand, there might be a substantial subsection of readers of the book who spend little time looking at social media and online articles (where the apology/retraction has primarily been reported on), and thus any reputational damage caused in the minds of those readers will be unaffected by the apology/correction.
Tom Double
PartnerRelated Services
- Defamed by the press
- Defamed on social media
- Defamed on television, radio or podcasts
- Defamed on X/Twitter – Twibel
- Defamed on TikTok
- Wrongly circulated as wanted by the media or on social media
- Defending a defamation claim
- IPSO press complaints
- IPSO arbitration procedure
- Responding to a request for comment by the media
- Inaccurate information on due diligence databases
- Norwich Pharmacal Orders – Identifying the Anonymous
- Privacy, Harassment and Defamation Injunctions
- Defamed on Facebook
- Defamed on YouTube
Recent Reported Cases
Legal Disclaimer
Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice
