Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Duke of Sussex court case: key witness statement false

1000 replies

bluegreygreen · 12/11/2025 12:23

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
34
JSMill · 22/01/2026 17:07

bluegreygreen · 22/01/2026 16:54

Final summary from today

Hurley's witness statement

  • In her witness statement, Hurley said the allegation that her home landlines had been tapped had left her "devastated", and described it as a "brutal invasion of privacy";
  • Listing her allegations, she wrote: "The Mail's unlawful acts against me involve landline tapping my phones and recording my live telephone conversations, placing surreptitious mics on my home windows, stealing my medical information when I was pregnant with Damian and other monstrous, staggering things";
  • "I believe that we should all be free to live with the expectation that what is private is private," she wrote. "People should feel comfortable in their own homes, feel free to say personal things to their mother, family and friends, without those conversations being illegally taped and broadcast to the world by a national newspaper";
  • She said the case was about "accountability to me and protecting the private walls of my home".
What has ANL said?
  • In ANL's written submissions, White said the allegations of unlawful information gathering by the publisher's journalists, "including of phone hacking and phone tapping, in connection with Ms Hurley or her 10 named associates", are "unsupported by the evidence before the court";
  • The allegations are "entirely baseless", he said, and "borne of an attempt by members of the claimants' research team, adopted by Ms Hurley and her legal representatives, to present a case of UIG (unlawful information gathering) against Associated based entirely on spurious and, or, discredited information";
  • In his opening statement in court, White described the claims as "threadbare", and says journalists have a "compelling" account of legitimate sourcing of the articles in question;
  • ANL also argues the claims have been brought too late.

I mean you can’t just say something and the court accepts it as as a fact surely. I can’t help feeling this group of people have such a sense of entitlement that they assume they will be believed.

Mylovelygreendress · 22/01/2026 17:12

Lunde · 22/01/2026 17:06

Did LH actually see microphones? Or was she told about them based on the dodgy Gavin Burrows dossier that he said he didn't write?

Presumably she took photos and filed a police report ??

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2026 17:13

Puzzledandpissedoff · 22/01/2026 16:55

But can you see that suiting Harry, jeff?

I can hear the howls of "establishment stitch-up" already Confused

Show quote history

Very true puzzled ! , honestly I find him insufferable, hypocritical and unintelligent, the fact that he and his wife reveal private information about family and friends constantly and with no hesitation about their privacy but expect different behaviour from others towards themselves is textbook hypocrisy! 🙄

jeffgoldblum · 22/01/2026 17:18

And I would further add that I’m surprised to find myself rooting for ANL ! , although I don’t condone illegal activity, I don’t want a news group muzzled by the rich and powerful! , I want them researching , investigating and reporting all the shady and corrupt people, everyone should be held to the same standards and we the people deserve to know exactly what our “ betters “ are up to.

MrsLeonFarrell · 22/01/2026 17:19

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 22/01/2026 16:25

I don’t think the horsey lot would have spilled the beans but there are always bar staff/cleaners etc

I don't like the insinuation that only the 'staff' would leak. There are many reasons why someone might choose to let slip, not least monetary.

I agree. I've lived in two counties near to areas with royal connections and stuff gets round even if you don't move in royal circles, which i don't. People talk to their friends who talk to their friends who talk to their friends. Or they talk a story in a shop or at the hairdresser or at a cafe where it gets heard and repeated. At some point it's easy for a journalist to pick up a trail. Then all they need to do is verify with some questions in the right place.

The sorts of stories referenced so far would spread without hacking, either because they are pretty trivial or because they are the sort of things journalists would be digging for.

MrsFinkelstein · 22/01/2026 17:24

KittyHigham · 22/01/2026 16:10

Really? Wow. I hadn't considered that to be a possibility.
I assumed that if there were identified sources for the information in the specified articles, this would have been included in the written submissions and therfore known to all parties? And as such, those sources (if named individuals) would need to be cross examined?
I understood the defence's task to be to demonstrate how the balance of probability was not in the litigants' favour by showing alternative possibilties? Not definitive proof of sources?

I have no legal knowledge at all, so would be very happy to be corrected and have explained to me what disclosing their sources might look like in the course of the trial.

Edited
Show quote history

My opinion would be that sources wouldn't be named as such, but that journalists would say we spoke to someone who worked at xyz, or who knew ABC, or a friend of xyz. Or paid xyz at such and such a business or a friend of a friend of whoever for info. Or we spoke to someone who overheard something and put together with this other info etc etc.

Seedy, but not UIG.

They would need to prove any payments made were specifically for UIG, not just willingly selling info on colleagues, friends, clients.

binkie163 · 22/01/2026 17:25

Hurley says "supposition is not the same as evidence",
Indeed 😂
They seem to think if their permission wasn't sought before printing and they didn't get to proof read it, it is illegal 🤷

Original poster
bluegreygreen · 22/01/2026 17:36

In her witness statement, Hurley said the allegation that her home landlines had been tapped had left her "devastated"

This bit makes it sound like it's just stuff she's been told.

OP posts:
MrsLeonFarrell · 22/01/2026 17:40

binkie163 · 22/01/2026 17:25

Hurley says "supposition is not the same as evidence",
Indeed 😂
They seem to think if their permission wasn't sought before printing and they didn't get to proof read it, it is illegal 🤷

They do! I hadn't noticed that but you are right.

MrsLeonFarrell · 22/01/2026 17:40

bluegreygreen · 22/01/2026 17:36

In her witness statement, Hurley said the allegation that her home landlines had been tapped had left her "devastated"

This bit makes it sound like it's just stuff she's been told.

A lot sounds like stuff they have been told.

Indianrollerbird · 22/01/2026 19:12

A bit more meat on the bones about today from Tom Sykes. Some hair raising stuff about how LH’s baby daddy went after his perceived enemies.

Harry allegedly left court this morning to go and visit Doreen Lawrence in the House of Lords. Rumour has it to stiffen her resolve (according to Sykes). She’s the next claimant to be heard. The next witness was supposed to be Jude Law giving evidence tomorrow (presumably in support of Sadie Frost), but his evidence is not being contested, so he doesn’t need to appear. So tomorrow should be Doreen Lawrence, but that’s obviously not happening.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WkROvEzmP7M

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WkROvEzmP7M

Mylovelygreendress · 22/01/2026 19:30

I wonder if Doreen Lawrence is having second thoughts ?

Indianrollerbird · 22/01/2026 19:54

Sykes says - I am not vouching for this - that Baroness Lawrence is the only one whose evidence relies entirely on Gavin Burrows witness statement. If that’s the case, she must be extremely nervous.

Original poster
bluegreygreen · 22/01/2026 20:03

Thanks @Indianrollerbird - I haven't watched the Tom Sykes video from yesterday yet but hope to catch up tonight.

OP posts:
Puzzledandpissedoff · 22/01/2026 20:40

Indianrollerbird · 22/01/2026 19:54

Sykes says - I am not vouching for this - that Baroness Lawrence is the only one whose evidence relies entirely on Gavin Burrows witness statement. If that’s the case, she must be extremely nervous.

Whatever the truth, given that Gavin Burrows has now disowned his alleged statement, doesn't that raise the question of who brought it to Doreen's attention in the first place?

Perhaps we'll find out when she appears ...

ThePoshUns · 22/01/2026 20:40

Poor Doreen, she is the only one I feel sorry for in this shitshow.

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 22/01/2026 21:00

ThePoshUns · 22/01/2026 20:40

Poor Doreen, she is the only one I feel sorry for in this shitshow.

Agree, her situation is completely different and she should never be put in a situation that makes her uncomfortable

GwendolineFairfax8 · 22/01/2026 21:05

bluegreygreen · 22/01/2026 12:21

Elizabeth Hurley is being asked about previous cases she has brought against other publishers.
Associated Newspapers (ANL) has denied allegations of wrongdoing but also argues this case has been brought too late.
Antony White, representing ANL, is trying to establish whether Hurley could have brought her claim sooner and is asking about her former boyfriend, Hugh Grant, and his involvement with the press reform campaign group Hacked Off.
The court hears Grant told her she might have a case against the publisher of the Mirror in 2015. She says she thinks he might have "popped round" to tell her, as they only lived around the corner from each other.
The actress received damages from MGN, publisher of the Mirror, in 2017.
In court, Hurley says she did not want to pursue a claim at first as she hadn't taken much interest in the Leveson Inquiry into press behaviour that had taken place a few years earlier.
However, she says she wanted to help Grant.
"He's my best friend, one of my best friends," she says, and in the end she agreed - and gave her awarded damages to Hacked Off.
She says Grant and Hacked Off were doing "good work".
Hurley tells the court they don't see each other very often and usually talk about "silly" things or family issues or scripts, but talk of politics or "anything grown up" was "phenomenally" unlikely.
White asks if Grant had known about potential unlawful information gathering by ANL, would he have told her?
Hurley says "supposition is not the same as evidence", and that she thinks she was told by her lawyer in 2020 that alleged evidence had been found.

So Elizabeth says she gave the money to Hugh Grant because ‘Hacked Off’ did good work - but she didn’t know what the work was 🤔

Of course he would have told her - he was obsessed from at least 2012. He and Evan Harris were schmoozing non-celebrity victims (of The News of the World) to encourage them to give interviews.

Indianrollerbird · 22/01/2026 21:19

Puzzledandpissedoff · 22/01/2026 20:40

Whatever the truth, given that Gavin Burrows has now disowned his alleged statement, doesn't that raise the question of who brought it to Doreen's attention in the first place?

Perhaps we'll find out when she appears ...

Show quote history

I believe she gave an interview a few months back, and said it was Harry who brought the matter to her attention.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g70271ndlo.amp

Doreen Lawrence wears a green dress with black patterning, and is sitting in a large formal room

'Prince Harry told me I was being hacked' - Stephen Lawrence's mum - BBC News

Baroness Doreen Lawrence says she was "floored" by the allegation the Daily Mail was spying on her.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g70271ndlo.amp

Original poster
bluegreygreen · 22/01/2026 22:04

@Indianrollerbird have just seen this

Duke of Sussex court case: key witness statement false
OP posts:
ThePoshUns · 22/01/2026 22:07

I know in criminal cases it’s not good for witnesses to be seen conferring during the trial. Not sure if the same for a civil one.

Original poster
bluegreygreen · 22/01/2026 22:09

I can see why people are concerned for Baroness Lawrence.

Equally, Gavin Burrows has denied that his initial statement was true since 2023.
She has had 2 years to decide to withdraw if she wanted to.

OP posts:
Baital · 22/01/2026 22:09

ThePoshUns · 22/01/2026 22:07

I know in criminal cases it’s not good for witnesses to be seen conferring during the trial. Not sure if the same for a civil one.

Is it technically the same trial? One poster said they were being grouped together, but each claim was actually separate?

ThePoshUns · 22/01/2026 22:12

It’s one trial I believe, multiple plaintiffs, one defendant

ThePoshUns · 22/01/2026 22:13

I could be weong , I didn’t have much knowledge of civil cases

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.