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?

This is an ongoing farce and David Sherborne should be ashamed of himself. Any private information could have been leaked by former or even present employees with an axe to grind.

Celebrity (and High Net Worth) Assistants can join this group - where there are no checks if employees have been dismissed.

www.aca-uk.com/

I am in contact with the Daily Mail about a case where I have irrefutable evidence. It is being checked and double checked before going to print because of the DM’s fear of being sued. To suggest it would risk using phone hackers is these press gaggers trying to take us for mugs.

I've read that Times article about 5 times now and can't work out what's going on. It's really badly written.

At the last hearing, we were told that Harry/claimants would not be calling Burrows to give direct evidence at trial, and would be relying on the hearsay evidence of his 2021 witness statement - the statement Burrows now says is untrue with a forged signature.

Now the latest Times article says that Sherborne wants to subpoena him. But for what? Trial - so are the claimants withdrawing the hearsay notice, and risking their principal witness denying any wrongdoing on the stand? Or as a witness in a preliminary hearing?

ANL/the Defendants had previously applied to cross examine Burrows at trial (they have to apply to do this following a hearsay notice being served). Is it for a hearing of that application that the Claimants are wanting to subpoena Burrows? Because they want to discredit him as, effectively, a "Defence witness" before trial, with this allegation of a violent interaction with the Claimants' researcher and demands for money? If so, they are discrediting their own witness as someone who is now lying about the alleged lies in the 2021 statement because of a dispute over payments. And perhaps trying to claim ANL has "paid off" Burrows by footing the legal bill for his 2025 retraction statement (which, at the previous hearing, Sherborne demanded evidence about).

It's an unholy mess, that's for sure.

It's an unholy mess, that's for sure

As we've learned, anything involving Harry's claims pretty generally is, @Indianrollerbird, but if even the likes of you and Serenster can't make hear nor tail of this latest one there seems little chance for the rest of us

As with previous cases I worry about any impact this may have on other claimants' cases, and wonder if perhaps they should have been less keen to join a group action with someone who's track record and relationship witth the truth was so well known

David Sherborne seems to have run up a huge bill on the basis of a dodgy PI statement

I feel for all the claimants in this case. Many don’t have Harry’s resources, and even his must be severely stretched by these bills .

Absolutely agree with the above 2 posts about other claimants. Whilst Harry was crowing about dragon slaying (and reverse ferreting on the virtue of settlement) in the previous cases, there were other claimants footing huge legal bills. Not because they weren’t hacked, but because they didn’t beat settlement offered before trial and/or the limitation period. Once again showing that the civil court is no place for a moral crusade, unless you are prepared to part with serious money for the principle of proving an old wrong.

The hearing carried on today, so we’ll see what word salad copy written in the pub the Times correspondent comes up with this time!

As with previous cases I worry about any impact this may have on other claimants' cases

A question: as this is a case brought by a group, if one person (Sadie Frost) is shown to have lied about when she became aware of the potential hacking (and hence is out of the limitation period), does that affect the others, or does each person's case stand on its own merit?

Each case stands on its own merit, @bluegreygreen .

Thank you @Indianrollerbird

This paragraph from the article about SF is illuminating:

“The existence of the email had been known earlier this year but it had been disclosed to Associated’s legal team in a “corrupted” form with two paragraphs missing, including the suggestion that Frost contact Moss. It is unclear if Frost did contact Moss”

Makes it very clear that the claimants are playing silly buggers and deliberately trying to mislead the court and the defence.

I agree the Times article is very badly written, hard to make head nor tail of what’s actually going on there.

Very convenient that the 'corrupted' form of the email omitted the significant paragraphs.

I wonder who decided it would be better to reveal the actual email.

But if so how is it being allowed, @elessar?

This isn't a game, and as many have said a court isn't an appropriate place to launch some sort of moral crusade, so surely anything like this should be shut down?

It makes me think that Doreen Lawrence might have been shown a, shall we say, ‘constructed narrative’ to persuade her on board. Her presence gives H’s ‘dragon slaying’ crusade - and it is a crusade - a lot of moral credibility in some ways. IMHO, H likes the association, and he seems to like Elton John’s money and jet.

It’s utter nonsense.

It just doesn’t work like that! They reference some funny characters appearing at the end of the email - a corrupt email doesn’t just add in some weird characters and delete two incriminating paragraphs and leave the rest readable, that’s just a flat out lie.

@PuzzledandpissedoffI totally agree, they should be in serious trouble over this. I’d go as far as to say their case should be thrown out entirely. As you say the courts aren’t a playground for rich people to mess about with to enact vengeance on other parties.

As far as i can tell Harry's court cases have always been more about the moral crusade than actual evidence of any wrong doing to him personally. He isn't achieving anything except wasting his and the court's time and money.

At this point, I am starting to side eye the court.

Isn't it an issue when an officer of the court, which the lawyers are, presents false evidence? Doesn't the UK have the equivalent of "contempt of court"?

Can't the judge issue significant fines or order the lawyers to serve 3 days in jail for contempt of court? If faced with real penalties, wouldn't these lawyers stop enabling client shenanigans designed to waste the court's time?

In my eyes the claimants' team is certainly losing credibility.

We've had direction from the judge not to trawl for examples of other people's phones being hacked; advice that they should include any payments made to witnesses; total discrediting of a key witness; and now one of the claimants potentially always known to be outside the limitation period.

It feels like a lack of due diligence somewhere.

Edit: not a lawyer - as always interested in @Indianrollerbird's and @Serenster's thoughts, including on your questions @My2cents1975. I know there is 'contempt of court' but I don't know the specific rules for it (or consequences).

We've had direction from the judge not to trawl for examples of other people's phones being hacked; advice that they should include any payments made to witnesses; total discrediting of a key witness; and now one of the claimants potentially always known to be outside the limitation period

I know, @bluegreygreen, and IIRC there have been many things "struck out" from Harry's various cases too, but here's the point:

We ordinary folk can't be expected to understand all the rules (and Harry certainly won't) but Sherborne's supposed to be an expert in these things, which begs the question of what the hell's happening here?

This is interesting. Warnings that losses for the claimants will be big if the case failsarticle here

"The ruling ... also suggested that, if only some win, then those who lose will be left with a much larger – and potentially crippling – debt burden"

I'd have thought the principle of being faced with the costs if you lose is pretty well established, @smilesy, but really can't see Harry understanding the above

Never mind though; if it happens he can always enter into an argument with the courts too

I quite agree but I think what the judge is drawing attention to is the potential size of the losses. Not small change to some of the claimants and
potentially not covered by their insurance

eta I also wondered if it was perhaps an intimation that the claims are not likely to succeed 🤷‍♀️

I had a look at the judgement yesterday.

I can't say I followed everything but think the main point is that there are two types of cost for the claimants: individual and combined (or group) costs (because part of the case is joint).

If they all lose, they all have to pay both. If some win and some lose, only the ones who lose will have to pay the combined costs. I think the judge is advising them to make sure they can cover the costs in the event that only a few of them have to pay the combined costs.

This would be in addition to those who lose having to pay the costs of the defendant, ANL.

(Please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone.)

Surely, if a plaintiff joined the trial believing in the false evidence presented to them by Sherborne & Co and then goes on to lose, there must be some redress from the courts.

If not, doesn't this open the door to unscrupulous lawyers who can rope in other plaintiffs on other cases based on false evidence, then proceed to bill said plaintiffs exorbitantly?

For society to function people need to believe that justice will be handled properly by the courts...otherwise you get chaos.

If the plaintiffs sue Sherborne, can't he just declare bankruptcy? He is starting to remind me of Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter.

I wondered the same, @smilesy, but not knowing anything about these things I couldn't say if this suggests anything about the likely outcome

TBH, with Harry having been able to settle a previous such case I kind of thought this one would follow the same pattern, but it doesn't seem to be working out like that and I can't imagine the judge will be impressed if it turns out that dodgy evidence has been used

As for various suggestions that some may have been persuaded to join the case because of Harry's high profile, the old saying about lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas comes to mind

Not looking good for the case for Harry and his fellow claimants at all. I do wish that Doreen Lawrence would think hard about her involvement in this.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2025/12/11/prince-harrys-phone-hacking-case-suffers-another-blow/

Prince Harry’s phone hacking case suffers another blow

Private investigator claims he never carried out bugging operation for Daily Mail to ‘steal information’ from Baroness Lawrence

Archive (free) link here: archive.ph/aTxGs