Duke of Sussex court case: key witness statement false

[bluegreygreen]

I looked for another thread on this but didn't see one.

The story is about the case Prince Harry (and 6 others) are bringing against the Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers) for phone hacking. Back in July the claimants were told to reveal any payments that were made to witnesses in exchange for evidence; this seems more serious.

From what I can gather the main witness (Gavin Burrows) in the case was employed by the claimants' team over a couple of years to help research into the phone hacking by different organisations and to track down relevant people. He says he was asked on several occasions if he had worked for the Daily Mail and always denied it, and the first he knew of the current case was when he heard in 2023 that Baroness Lawrence had brought it based on his evidence.

Apparently Burrows wrote a statement at that time (2023) denying the claims and has now written a more detailed statement also denying the claims.

The claimants now don't want to call him as a witness (unsurprisingly) but do want to rely on (some of) his evidence as 'hearsay evidence'.
They also don't want Associated Newspapers to be allowed to call him as a witness.

Telegraph archive link
https://archive.is/YAjNq

I haven't heard before of 'hearsay evidence' being used like this - does anyone know the rules? How can it be tested?

Question for the legal eagles.

What are Doreen Lawrence and the other plaintiff's legal options if they joined the lawsuit based on the 2021 statement and that statement is subsequently proven to be a forgery?

Can they sue Sherborne and his associates for malpractice? Or Burrows for misleading? Can they recoup any legal fees/costs? Can they sue for emotional distress (which is common stateside but not sure how UK courts approach this)?

Not at all unfair @MrsLeonFarrell! Let’s be honest without her most people would consider it a bunch of rich celebrities complaining and sueing for even more money, while the rest of the population can’t get laws enforced or feed their children!

I can only assume because they’re not interested in the truth.

Regardless of all the legal ins and outs, does anyone really believe the DM weren’t hacking phones back then?

I don’t really understand why being rich means you can’t complain about having your personal voicemails listened to by a journalist.

Because that is what most struggling people think when they see things like this! 🤷‍♀️

We can all believe what we like but if we are going to try and prove something in a court of law, we need to have our ducks in a row. So it’s not really relevant what we think with regard to Harry et al’s case if someone’s dodgy testimony blows a big hole in it

This is the line of argument Sherborne's been trying - that if the DM hacked some people's calls, they were probably hacking these claimants' calls. Unfortunately, the principal witness to the DM being engaged in any hacking/UIG has now withdrawn his statement. What any of us thinks doesn't really matter in a court of law that requires actual evidence from the claimants themselves about their own cases, not anyone else's.

We can all believe what we like but if we are going to try and prove something in a court of law, we need to have our ducks in a row

Wise words, @smilesy, but then Harry's told us himself that his curated memories version of events are just as good as objective reality and really seems to believe it, so I can quite see him expecting others to believe it too purely on his say-so

Too bad for him that the real world doesn't work like that ...

What any of us thinks doesn't really matter in a court of law that requires actual evidence from the claimants themselves about their own cases, not anyone else's

Edited to add I agree with this too, @Indianrollerbird, but again it seems pretty clear that Harry finds any questioning of his narrative distasteful, and the number of things he's wanted to submit which have been struck out rather suggests he'd rather the rules apply to the little people but not him

Didn’t Harry once try to argue that he must have been hacked because “his associates” had been - the P+POW - yes, because of course nobody would have any interest in them if they weren’t associates of Harry 😂

Phones were being hacked, we have known that for years. Whether or not Harry's phone was hacked is what they are claiming and need to prove in court. Saying he was hacked because his brother was is not evidence.

I’m disappointed that some people’s dislike of Harry means they want to see him lose this case - we shouldn’t forget who the bad guys are here.

Who wants Harry to lose? 👀

This is the line of argument Sherborne's been trying - that if the DM hacked some people's calls, they were probably hacking these claimants' calls.

Thanks @Indianrollerbird - I had been trying to remember if that was the line being followed in this case or a previous one (didn't want to look it up at this time of night!). If I remember correctly the judge has already commented that the claimants should not be trawling for evidence of other phone hacking (or words to that effect).

I don't think anyone has said they want Harry (or the other 6 claimants) to lose. We are discussing the fact that an important witness has been shown to be unreliable (no matter which version of the statement you believe).

The outcome of a court case can't depend on what someone assumes was happening. There has to be evidence.

That's a very good question @My2cents1975 - would also be interested if anyone has an opinion.

Do you think he should be able to win a case for phone hacking without presenting any evidence? Do you want to tell us what evidence he does have?

The case is not about phone hacking only, it’s about illegal information gathering.

I personally find it disturbing that Burrows was allegedly being paid to lie. Isn't this worth looking into by some legal entity?

So it is. And the same evidential burden applies to UIG. And the main witness on the matter of UIG, Burrows, is now saying he didn't do it.

A monkey could have won the case for Coleen Rooney.

David Sherborne knows that employees of these celebrities/high profile individuals, who have access to everything about their employers (homes, children, medical records etc) can and do leak highly sensitive information despite having signed strict confidentiality agreements.

I hope he drops the case. The Daily Mail is not the bad guy here. It is sad that Mrs Lawrence is being used for other people’s agendas.

Just because you believe or know someone is a bad person and has done it before doesn't mean you can dispense with proper evidence.

I always had the impression that Colleen won her own case!

I honestly worry about the state of this country when people don’t seem to grasp the basics of our legal system, like the fact that you actually need evidence to convict someone of a crime. Good grief.

🫣

The case was clear cut - all power to Coleen Rooney who did not want the case to proceed - only because of the work and stress involved to her and her children - not because she was ever going to fail. Rebekah Vardy was seriously ill advised to start proceedings (note by Charlotte Harris mentioned often in The Hack).

Lots of innocent people are convicted by our pathetic Crown Prosecution Service - and lots of criminals roam free due to their failings. Watch Ann Ming - I fought the law and the awesome Anna Maxwell Martin in Until I kill you.

Any normal, rational person would despise the Met and the CPS.