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?

I don’t disagree that the CPS and the Met have serious failings, plenty of people acknowledge that. But even with those flaws, you still can’t convict someone without solid evidence. The fact that other people were phone hacked doesn’t automatically mean Harry was; each case needs its own proof. And in this situation, the evidence put forward simply isn’t reliable.

The sub-postmasters would disagree with you that they were convicted by solid evidence.

Prince Harry’s case is civil and the burden of proof lower. However, there are £millions at stake. I would hope David Sherborne recommends his client (s) drop the case (s). Signing a sworn statement when you know there are serious discrepancies in your case - becomes a criminal matter.

While unfortunate, cases of miscarriage of justice are extremely rare. No system is perfect, and wrongful convictions can occur, but they make up only a tiny fraction of all convictions. That’s why each overturned case causes such public attention, because they are so unusual.

Surely we can agree that relying on reliable and reputable evidence is fundamental to fair justice. How else could we reasonably try and convict cases without it?

And in criminal cases previous convictions are deliberately concealed from the jury to prevent them affecting judgment of the actual case.

Yes! Trials are judged on a case by case basis.

Take the Letby trial, for example (as controversial as some may find it). She was found guilty on several counts, but she was also acquitted of two charges, and the jury couldn’t reach a verdict on six others. Being guilty on one count doesn’t automatically mean someone is guilty on every charge. Each count must stand on its own credible evidence.

The same principle applies here. Just because other celebrities’ phones have been hacked doesn’t automatically mean Harry’s was. It’s up to Harry to prove this with credible, verifiable evidence, and so far, the key testimony he has relied on appears to be unreliable or even fabricated. Realistically, unless he can produce additional concrete evidence to support his claim, his case could face serious challenges.

…. because most court cases are straightforward. The Lucy Letby case is a good example of a complex case and the failure of the system. Her conviction is unsafe.

Which other celebrities’ phones have been hacked (since the convictions of Glenn Mulcaire and Andy Coulson)?

Yet you still haven’t explained what alternative system you would use if you’re against relying on reputable evidence to secure convictions. Yes, the system isn’t flawless, but miscarriages of justice are rare. What’s the alternative — to base cases on reputation, probability, or hearsay? Please explain how you would propose handling it.

but I am saying to rely on reputable evidence. I do not think Prince Harry has enough to win his case. As long as he is paying his legal fees himself it’s fine.

There is no real answer to our criminal justice system. I would like to see the Police and CPS (and other prosecution bodies) face severe penalties when obvious errors are made which cause harm to individuals - but it will not happen.

There is no real answer to our criminal justice system. I would like to see the Police and CPS (and other prosecution bodies) face severe penalties when obvious errors are made which cause harm to individuals - but it will not happen.

There are checks and balances built into the system though - the investigator (the police) does not make the decision to take a prosecution forward (the CPS does that). And people who have clearly committed crimes often walk free because there’s been a technical error in handling evidence along the way, which aims at ensuring a fair and consistent process is followed. Plus we have the jury system, which can result in some irrational decisions.Then there’s also the rule against double jeopardy. I’m not saying it can’t be improved - everything can be. But severe penalties when obvious errors are made means no-one will want to do the job - someone will have to take responsibility and in many cases that won’t be the reason who actually made the error.

There’s a piece today in the Times about what is turning into an unedifying mess, from which I hope Doreen Lawrence manages to extract herself.

Prince Harry detective ‘drunkenly assaulted member of legal team’

(It’s surprisingly poorly written for the Times, IMO.)

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/prince-harry-daily-mail-latest-jqbxgj55s

This is a (free to access) archive link:

archive.ph/F4XtL

Why did the witness need anonymity? We aren't talking about a mafia trial.

No, the mafia would have catchier code names than "Berlin".

What a weirdly written article. It feels like they know a lot more than they’re allowed to say and are trying to hint at something, but I just can’t read between the lines 🤔

Basically the wheels are coming off Burrows as a credible witness, as he is not just completely flakey about his past witness statements, but he’s also got some incidents in his past that mean - quite apart from the alleged lying - he won’t come across well. So Harry’s team are looking for a new witness to shore up their case.

It’s clearly a small industry and they all know each other (hence the comment that Burrows would know exactly who “Berlin” is if he heard them give evidence) so the secrecy seems hard to understand. My cynical mind thinks immediately that if the other side doesn’t know the identity of the witness they can’t go digging into their background and find out things that go to their credibility - but that’s a complete guess.

And now this.

www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/27/former-daily-mail-editor-paul-dacre-to-be-witness-in-trial-brought-by-prince-harry-and-others

Paul Darcey’s is giving evidence for Harry? Interesting, given he said (on oath) to the Leveson enquiry back in 2012 that:

Mr Dacre said he had never placed a story in the newspaper that he knew had come from phone hacking and was convinced it did not happen.
"I know of no cases of phone hacking," he said. "Having conducted a major internal inquiry, I am as convinced as I can be that there is no phone hacking on the Daily Mail.
"I don't make that statement lightly. And no editor, the editor of the Guardian or the Independent, could say otherwise."
He also refused to take back his description of actor Hugh Grant's allegations about phone hacking at the Mail as "mendacious smears driven by his hatred of the media",

Is he now going to recant from that? Personally very risky. Or is he just going to say they used other methods of illegal evidence gathering, but not phone hacking?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16909539

I think ANL is calling Dacre, in the trial brought by Harry et al.

Some of these headlines and articles are not particularly clear, but then neither are Harry’s arguments via his barrister.

Paul Dacre still works for ANL, and he’s being called as their witness, not Harry’s. Along with former editor, Peter Wright.

The Guardian article archived.

https://archive.ph/AA5ay

Oh lord, now what?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/27/sadie-frost-high-court-phone-hacking-prince-harry/

‘Sadie Frost may have misled High Court over phone hacking claims

‘Email suggests actress tried to enlist Kate Moss to case in 2016, three years earlier than she claimed she became aware of intrusion’

Archive version:

archive.ph/kzskx

'Curiouser and curiouser'

I’m no expert but it seems that they have no credible case and are falsifying evidence and paying for witnesses.

I really hope that a couple of the others walk away from Harry and this weird case now, notably Elton John who’s presumably funding it and Doreen Lawrence who IMO is being used to give the case credibility.

Who cares if H keeps on phoning them? They can block him.

.

Thanks for all the links.

I assume this ties in with the allegation that the Claimants were planting hacking stories in the ByLine Times to get around limitation of action, and claiming reading those stories was the first time they were made aware of their potential claim. The Claimants’ chief researcher (the one Burrows allegedly threatened) works for ByLine iirc. He’s a formerly convicted hacker.