The publication of a new book by Charles Spencer, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, has sparked a very public dispute with broadcaster Piers Morgan.
What was said?
In the book, Spencer suggested that Morgan was responsible for the publication of intrusive photographs of Princess Diana taken in a gym in 1993. This is significant because the gym photographs became one of the most notorious invasions of Princess Diana’s privacy, leading to litigation, injunctions preventing further publication and a substantial settlement.
There was just one problem: according to Morgan, he was not working for the Mirror at the time. The photographs were published in 1993, whereas Morgan did not join the Daily Mirror until 1995.
The apology… and why the story didn’t end there
Following the criticism, Spencer publicly apologised and accepted that his statement about Morgan’s involvement had been wrong.
Spencer’s admission is significant from a legal perspective. In many disputes, the central battleground is whether the statement complained of is true. Here, Spencer has publicly accepted that the allegation was wrong, which may strengthen Morgan’s position should the dispute progress and increase the pressure on both author and publisher to correct the record.
Despite the apology, Morgan has maintained that the allegation should never have been published and has reportedly demanded that the offending material be removed from circulation. He has also stated publicly that he intends to continue pursuing legal action. Given Morgan’s ongoing profile as a broadcaster and media commentator, it is unsurprising that he considers allegations linking him to one of the most infamous press intrusions involving Princess Diana to be damaging to his reputation.
Why accuracy matters
This dispute is a reminder that fact-checking is not merely an editorial exercise; it is often the first line of legal defence. Where a statement concerns a specific and verifiable fact, publishers may find themselves in a difficult position if that fact later proves to be wrong. An apology may help to limit the damage, but it will not necessarily eliminate legal exposure.
The Morgan dispute demonstrates how quickly a factual error can escalate. What began as an allegedly inaccurate statement in a published book has led to demands for corrections, threats of defamation proceedings and calls for the book to be withdrawn from sale.
The bigger lesson
The dispute is also a reminder that factual inaccuracies have a habit of travelling.
Once an objectively verifiable error comes to light, attention can quickly shift from the mistake itself to the credibility of the publication as a whole. Morgan has publicly argued that the admitted error calls into question other contentious claims made in the book. That point is particularly significant here because the book contains a number of serious and widely reported allegations concerning members of the Royal Family, including the King. Spencer’s public admission may not only affect the credibility of those allegations in the court of public opinion but could also make it more difficult for him to defend any future claims that disputed statements in the book are accurate.
The lesson from Spencer’s mistake is simple: fact-check first, publish second. Protecting your reputation starts with understanding your legal rights. Kerrie Duffy can provide practical advice on defamation, corrections and reputation management.