Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 3

[bluegreygreen]

This is the third thread discussing the case Prince Harry (and 6 others) are bringing against the Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers) for alleged unlawful information gathering (UIG).

Thread 1

Thread 2

Since the celebrities have given evidence, there has been limited direct reporting from court; what there is has mostly been on this link
Sky News link to court case

How much has this dodgy cop been paid for his ‘autobiography’ a tale of corruption and lies, but with a heartwarming finale of redemption 🤣

Thanks @Thedom - very informative.

Don't think much of his barrister's attempt at mitigation - most people who develop depression don't become criminals.

I am completely lost on half of this!
Dodgy policeman (criminal conviction) will swear that dodgy burrows is dodgy, that he witnessed burrows original statement, sold burrows UIG info as he he was running a super grass side hustle while employed by the met. Is this the PC who overheard (can't remember what) who told someone else something.
Burrows statement saying he did 100's if not 1,000's of uig for DM that in itself sounds ridiculous and also says he never worked for DM ever. I'm guessing there are no payments shown to burrows from DM.
Baroness Lawrence didn't think anything was slightly off with any of this evidence provided by paid convicted criminals. Also knowing that a fellow baroness was one of the journalists accused of lying, happy days in the house of lords!
I thought the claimants were less than coherent or convincing but this 🤷
If I was Sherborn I think I would be worried about being disbarred. Doesn't he bear the responsibility of at least fact checking this stuff.

PA's version of court today - not sure it's the 'smoking gun' for the claimants. Basically, "Burrows boasted to me about working for the Mail (and other newspapers)". Not exactly hard evidence, is it?

EX-POLICEMAN TELLS COURT HE DOES NOT HAVE 'GRUDGE' AGAINST PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR
about:blank Nina Massey
By Nina Massey, Press Association Law Correspondent
622 words
19 March 2026
17:41
Press Association National Newswire
PRESSA
English
(c)2026, The Press Association, All Rights Reserved

An ex-police officer told the High Court he is not dishonest, as he made claims in relation to a private investigator he was accused of having a "grudge" against.
Jerry Yanover gave evidence on behalf of the Duke of Sussex and a group of household names in the trial of claims of unlawful information gathering brought against about:blank Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), which publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.
The publisher strongly denies the allegations and is defending the case brought by Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes.
Mr Yanover told the court in London that private investigator Gavin Burrows, who has been described as central to the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by the group, "boasted" to him about working for the Daily Mail.
Previously known as Jeremy Young, the witness was jailed for 27 months in 2007 after pleading guilty to conspiring to commit misconduct in public office.
On Thursday, the court heard he ran a detective agency called Active Investigations Services (AIS), which also carried out "illegal" work, while on long-term sick leave from the Metropolitan Police.
In his witness statement, Mr Yanover said: "At first, Burrows, as I will refer to him throughout the rest of my statement, gave us work to do, such as tasking AIS to carry out surveillance on targets connected to his cases.
"But later the roles reversed, and Burrows became a major subcontractor for AIS.
"He had a lot to do with the illegal side of AIS but also wider, too - he supplied to lots of firms like ours."
He added: "He (Burrows) boasted about working for newspapers, including the Mail.
"He worked for all the papers, and the Mail was at the centre of that. He told me that."
Mr Yanover also said he knew Mr Burrows was not trustworthy, and that he had "no morals or ethics".
He added that Mr Burrows had told him that his work for the press consisted of "phone tapping, blagging, gathering bank statements and travel itineraries".
Antony White KC, for ANL, put it to the witness that he was giving evidence because he had a grudge against Mr Burrows as he believed him to be an informant in connection with his arrest.
Mr Yanover said: "It is not something that I wanted to do because the past is the past.
"But I feel it is important to have everyone held accountable for things I have been accused of and convicted of."
Referring to Mr Yanover's conviction, Mr White put it to him that he was a "thoroughly dishonest man", to which he replied "not at all".
Mr White asked Mr Yanover: "Does your pointing the finger at Gavin Burrows set any of what you did straight?"
He replied: "I cannot explain why he was not arrested.
"He was the main protagonist in all of our illegal activities, so when I was asked to assist in this matter, yes, part of it was that I feel that he should be held to account."
Mr White said: "You have harboured a grudge against Mr Burrows for many years, haven't you?"
Mr Yanover said: "No, that is not the case."
He later added: "I have no grudge against Mr Burrows, he means nothing to me anymore.
"But I do believe people should be held to account, and as far as I am aware, he never has been."
The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude on March 31, with a written judgment expected at a later date.
PA Media

It's a soap opera.

Is this the individual Burrows felt he needed to avoid for his personal safety by testifying over zoom?
Yanover despite denying it totally sounds like he holds a personal grudge against Burrows.

Mr Yanover also said he knew Mr Burrows was not trustworthy, and that he had "no morals or ethics"

Reliable witness then. I don't understand any of this. I keep thinking must be missing something, why on earth would anyone risk 34 million pounds on this?

Pot, kettle and black, all of them.
Claimants come across as vengeful.
Hacked off.. openly vengeful
Ex con ex copper.... vengeful
Sherborn.... vengeful and lucrative line of business
Claimants witness's have been paid.

Mr Yanover also said he knew Mr Burrows was not trustworthy, and that he had "no morals or ethics" says a corrupt policeman who went to prison for 2 years for hacking, UIG, blagging etc! moonlighting and being paid on sick leave by the met! The one thing he does believe from this thoroughly untrustworthy man is his boasting about who he worked for! Oh and he is pissed off that he escaped jail.

Journalists....just doing my job mate, expected to remember 20+ years ago when things were rather different.

Telegraph:

Prince Harry witness is corrupt police officer with a grudge, court hears

Thanks @PrayForMyBum
He added: "He (Burrows) boasted about working for newspapers, including the Mail.
"He worked for all the papers, and the Mail was at the centre of that. He told me that."
So this is the closest we've got to evidence - and it's still indirect; someone says that GB told them he worked for the Mail.
For all his description of GB being involved in his own illegal practices, he hasn't described employing him to hack on behalf of the Mail.
There's still no direct evidence linking the articles in these cases to UIG.

No grudge?
Mr Yanover said: "It is not something that I wanted to do because the past is the past.
"But I feel it is important to have everyone held accountable for things I have been accused of and convicted of."
"I cannot explain why he was not arrested.
"He was the main protagonist in all of our illegal activities, so when I was asked to assist in this matter, yes, part of it was that I feel that he should be held to account."

Thanks @CraftyGin

Yanover admitted that he believed Mr Burrows had escaped arrest and conviction in relation to their work at AIS by being an informant.

Even if you believe him it's hearsay, surely.

So a convicted police offer with a grudge offering hearsay evidence.

i xan understand now why Burrows doesn’t want his location shared

Interesting that the Judge didn't think Yanover's identity needed preserving but he seems onboard with the idea that Burrows had legitimate fears of attack.

I also enjoyed Yanover trying to deny her had a grudge whilst claiming he just wanted Buried to face justice.

Nothing on the PA schedule today, folks, so it's now all about Gavin Burrows appearing on Monday. Hoping for some live coverage - surely? - for this one.

Thanks 🙏, yes it seems nothing much happens on a Friday!
maybe behind the scenes paperwork?

Thanks @PrayForMyBum - let's hope so!

So according to this corrupt individual, who was suddenly able to be a last minute witness for the claimants, who previously appeared on a hacked off video wearing a mask and who was approached by Graham Johnson, now claims that Burrows was a Police informant? I would definitely take that and anything he said in his abysmal Court appearance yesterday, with a pinch of salt! No evidence of that at all and stupid for him to allege that, without providing proof because that alone, is a dangerous allegation. Again, linked to Johnson, Hacked Off - far too many coincidences.

Are fireworks expected in the court room today.

If Sherwood wants to cross examine Burrow's does that mean the disputed statements are now out, otherwise would that mean ‘having your cake and eating it’

As I understand it, both statements are part of the witness evidence for court, so Burrows can be questioned on both.

The claimants have now decided they wish to go ahead with verbal examination of Burrows, and have been permitted to do so with restrictions (documented upthread and in detail in the judgement) to prevent them profiting from changing their mind.

Thanks @bluegreygreenand others for informative updates .
Am I the only one a bit confused about proceedings ? Why is the judge allowing some of the “ evidence”?

Can’t see any live feeds on BBC/Sky yet. Will be very annoyed if there aren’t any!

@Mylovelygreendress In his judgement on 12/03 Judge Nicklin suggested that he felt this was the best way to ensure justice was served.

He put restrictions in place to prevent the claimants profiting from the change to oral evidence (e.g. no leading questions), while any restrictions on ANL's cross-examination were lifted.
He also warned the claimants that they risked ending up with no evidence for some of their significant allegations.

There was some criticism of the claimants' strategy.

Judgement on Burrows' testimony

Not seeing any sign @PrayForMyBum

Thanks @bluegreygreen