The Prince of Wales was "ill-advised" in fighting the publication of personal documents in a Sunday newspaper, according to a leading media lawyer.

Mark Stephens, a partner at Finer Stephens Innocent, believes that The Mail on Sunday did not breach copyright and confidentiality when it published extracts from Prince Charles’s journal, since the Prince himself had already photocopied and passed on extracts of his journals to numerous associates.

"He circulated this to friends, acquaintances, politicians, members of the cloth, journalists, so it’s hardly confidential," Mr Stephens told Times Online. "It’s been so widely circulated that anything that was private about it is [no longer private]."

If the Prince had kept the journals strictly to himself, the law is "very clear" that the newspaper would be wrong in publishing them, the lawyer said.

"The problem that he’s got, I think, is that he widely circulated it. I think if you put something out there and circulate it as widely as he has, it’s fair game. And I think that’s the critical difference here. This isn’t something which was a private letter to one person or which screamed confidentiality. This was something which was widely circulated to a broad church of people"

The Prince had been pushed into action by his advisers out of "embarrassment", Mr Stephens believed, and faced a public relations disaster if his application was rejected, as he would be called upon to give evidence if the case went to trial, opening him to further scrutiny. "That’s not an appropriate position for the heir apparent to be in."

Legally, the Royal Family has no greater claim to privacy than any ordinary member of the public, Mr Stephens said. Morally, they should be held up to far greater scrutiny, he added.

"He is a man who, at the end of the day, holds in his hands the constitution of this country and as a consequence we need to know what his views on world affairs are and how he is likely to interact with foreign governments and our own Government. The fact that he has views, that they are amusing, that they are quite incisive is something which [should be] reassuring to members of the British public."

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers