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?

Agree, as always two levels, systematic and individual. Any individual person in any role could choose to sell information.

Is buying information considered UIG?

I don’t find the excuses either Harry or Hurley have given credible or even something normal grown ups would use as excuses. They sound infantile

Quite

And thank you, @Indianrollerbird, for the link showing that Doreen did indeed reveal it was Harry who led her into this. Frankly I'd have hoped for better judgement given his endless and well publicised lies, but I'll probably be deleted for saying so

I think when the celebrities were recruited for this case in 2019/2020 - Harry's credibility was not as (publicly) damaged as it is today. He was more of a sympathetic character who was (allegedly) leaving his life of privilege for a life of privacy (until he turned up in Hollywood).

Yes that's probably fair, Lunde, but I'm not sure what would have prevented her pulling out when things became much clearer?

As I understand it, straightforward paying someone for information is not unlawful - and has been a regular part of journalistic trade for decades.

What is being alleged is unlawful information gathering (UIG).
-phone hacking: an illegal technique used to access voicemail messages on mobiles.
-phone tapping: listening into and/or recording someone's phone call as it's happening.
-blagging: obtaining private information, like financial or medical records, through deception.

(Please someone correct me if I'm wrong)

Thanks @bluegreygreen . It wasn’t the Elvedon inquiry I had in mind; it was the murder of a press investigator in the 1980s, an alleged cover up of this, and the deceased’s business partners selling Met police info to the Murdoch press for many years. There was an inquiry in 2021 (the last of 4) that found widespread met police corruption. Nobody convicted and convictions highly unlikely according to the inquiry.

I think from memory this was officers from Catford? And I think that was also where the police investigating Stephen Lawrence’s murder were based too. Possibly also the New Cross Fire (but would need to check I’ve not muffled the two up).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Daniel_Morgan

Bloody hell were they prosecuted. I suppose it would be naive of me to think it doesn't happen, I just expect more from people who hold public office and who we are supposed to respect 😡
Sarah Everard was the last straw for me and the treatment of the women at the silent vigil.
Back in the 1970's it was common place but it isn't so easy to hush up now.

@binkie163I absolutely agree with you about the treatment of the women at the Sarah Everard vigil. Two of my closest friends serve/d in the Met and I have always tried to defend the police as I know what a hard job it is but what happened at the vigil disgusted me.

Sorry wrong thread

It’ not that easy - the defendant is entitled to be paid their costs if the claimant discontinue their case.

Awful situation to be in. Cut your loses with huge bill or see it through hoping the bill hasn't quadrupled plus your own expenses if you don't win.

It's a real problem. I think a lot of the claimants believed the disputed Gavin Burrows evidence of unlawful acts - for some claimants this is why they decided to sue

IIRC the claimants have been very slow in handing over all of the paperwork and the fact that he first denied making the statement in 2023 (!!!) did not become known until September 2025! By which time the costs were north of £30 million. So perhaps they thought it best to plough on or were talked into it.

I believe that not all of the claimants really intended to take it to court - they expected to settle and hold a campaigning press conference.

Yes I kind of thought that would be the case, Serenster, but with the claimant being who she is I don't doubt someone would have stepped up to pay her costs

I believe that not all of the claimants really intended to take it to court - they expected to settle and hold a campaigning press conference

Edited to add I agree that's very likely, @Lunde, but ANL wouldn't play and here we are

I am very, very far behind with all this but does anyone else find it somewhat strange that Liz Hurley is on the same ticket as Harold when she rather humiliatingly had to deny she was the 'older woman' who picked his flower in a field?

She's never struck me as a fiery campaigner for, well, anything really. She's independently wealthy and had pretty much dropped off the celeb radar.

I'm just surprised she's prepared to make so much effort to align herself with a cause showing little substance so far.

IIRC the claimants have been very slow in handing over all of the paperwork and the fact that he first denied making the statement in 2023 (!!!) did not become known until September 2025! By which time the costs were north of £30 million. So perhaps they thought it best to plough on or were talked into it.

I confess I still don't quite understand the timeline @Lunde. As you say, the claimants have been slow with the paperwork - but Burrows says he contacted the DM and wrote a statement for them in 2023 denying the original one. Surely they would have told the claimants then?

I think the judge was getting frustrated with the claimants' delays - this is the last paragraph from the November judgement

I have narrowly been persuaded by the Claimants that I should not make an unless order, at this stage. Whilst there is obvious urgency, in view of the trial date, this is not an instance of a party defying an order of the Court. The Claimants have raised the issue of the extent to which the Research Team’s documents are within their control. I have ruled that the assessment that they made was erroneous. There is no basis upon which to conclude that the Claimants will not now comply with the order that will be made requiring a proper search of the Research Team’s documents to be made and appropriate disclosure to be provided. The Court has received assurances that the
Research Team will cooperate to enable a proper search to be made. The sanction of striking out the Claimants’ claims would, at this stage, be disproportionate. The impending trial date means that this task must be completed quickly, and the Court is likely to be unsympathetic to any delay or non-compliance. Ultimately, the Court will achieve compliance with its orders. If that requires a sanction to be imposed, then that may well be the next step. As I say, at this stage, I see no reason to anticipate non-compliance on the part of the Claimants.

It does seem that there is no smoking gun, or ANL would have offered a settlement. They have seen all the claimants evidence.

It seems that the costs are going to far outweigh any damages? So with claimants who can afford to go the distance it is sensible to err on the side of caution and settle.

Obviously if claimants can't afford to put up the money, then holding out makes sense. Because the claimants wouldn't be able to fund it.

Not right morally, of course, but I am looking at it from their point of view.

Does anyone know if they have offered a settlement (that official one that make claimants liable if they refuse but they get awarded less than the offer)?

Part 36 offer. Nobody other than the people making the offer / receiving the offer should know about it (until the case concludes),

To some degree I am with you on that.

But then I think - what if they use those tactics on a judge? Or a Minister who is going to sign important legislation? Or a rape victim - whose rapist is some popular lad?

The papers have massive power. Too much.

They can swing elections, Brexits, and God knows what else.

So maybe, just maybe, this crew are doing us a favor.

I don't think the press have as much power these days, levenson clipped their wings, advertising drying up, more people get their independent news online. All media outlets have an agenda. The public have an insatiable thirst for gossip so YouTube etc have large reach, it's all about clicks not accuracy these days. The DM is more likely to get a story off Mumsnet these days than journalism.

It does seem that there is no smoking gun, or ANL would have offered a settlement. They have seen all the claimants evidence

That reminds me off something I was going to ask, Baital ... can anyone tell me if the requirement for the prosecution to give the defence the info they possess in criminal cases works in reverse in civil ones?

In other words, will ANL have actually seen whatever evidence the claimants have?

I have sent Mr Sherborne (copying in Mr White) information and images which shatter his clients’ argument.

I wonder if he will try to brazen it out next week.

Not a lawyer, @Puzzledandpissedoff, but I understand there is the same requirement for disclosure on both sides.
Neither side can then suddenly introduce new evidence in court without showing it to the other side.