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

I see that Burrows has shown his signature and said it’s completely different to the 2021 one, with an exhibit showing born. He said he didn’t work for DM apart from a Richard Branson story.
He said he felt sorry for Doreen Lawrence being conned by the fake statement which he hears about when it was reported.

Press Gazette article about Burrows
https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/signature-on-crucial-prince-harry-privacy-case-statement-forged-says-private-eye/

https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/signature-on-crucial-prince-harry-privacy-case-statement-forged-says-private-eye/

Finally!

Sorry - I just saw your post. You beat me to it! Thank you for this!

This sounds potentially criminal ?

Thanks for the updates need the 😲 emoji again!!

Was anyone else mentioned in Burrows disputed witness statement?

Interesting that Sherborne says Burrows’ signature could not possibly be forged, when I sent evidence to him that Hugh Grant got his employees to forge his signature on fanmail that he could not be bothered to sign. A lot of trees were felled in the process of trying for the ‘perfect’ signature.

It looks like someone did not even bother to try with Burrows - probably thinking the case would be settled out of court.

Forgery. At the request of Hugh Grant himself.

Can someone make an archive link please? I can't read that

PA's version (pretty confusingly written, but I think we know which side Burrows is now definitely batting for):

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 'SWITCHED SIDES' IN MAIL PUBLISHER CASE, HIGH COURT TOLD
about:blank Callum Parke
By Callum Parke and Jess Glass, Press Association
825 words
23 March 2026
14:02
Press Association National Newswire
PRESSA
English
(c)2026, The Press Association, All Rights Reserved

A private investigator decided to "switch sides out of revenge" when he denied claims he allegedly previously made that he had carried out unlawful information gathering for the publisher of the Daily Mail, the High Court has heard.
Gavin Burrows allegedly said in a witness statement in August 2021 that he targeted "hundreds, possibly thousands of people" through voicemail hacking, landline tapping and accessing financial and medical information for a journalist at the Mail On Sunday.
It also said that members of a group of seven people suing about:blank Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over claims of unlawful information gathering, including the Duke of Sussex, Liz Hurley and Sir Elton John, were "just a small handful of my targets".
But in a statement last year, Mr Burrows denied ever conducting unlawful information gathering on behalf of ANL and said that his purported signature on the 2021 statement was forged.
The publisher strongly denies wrongdoing and is defending the claims.
On Monday, barrister David Sherborne, for the group, told Mr Burrows that the August 2021 statement was "signed by you" and its "contents were true".
Giving evidence voluntarily by a video link from an undisclosed location abroad, Mr Burrows denied this, and also said that the signatures between the 2021 and 2025 statements "do not match".
Mr Sherborne said: "You did carry out unlawful acts for Associated, which you repeatedly mention in this statement."
Mr Burrows replied: "No."
Mr Sherborne then suggested that Mr Burrows changed his position in October 2022, following a dispute with former journalist Graham Johnson, who works as a researcher for the legal team representing the group.
The barrister said: "That is when you decided to lie, Mr Burrows, and deny your work for Associated."
Mr Burrows replied: "No, I have never worked for Associated."
Mr Sherborne said: "Your denials since then have been a lie, haven't they?
"You decided to switch sides out of revenge."
Mr Burrows said: "It was not a case of switching sides."
Mr Sherborne later said: "I suggest to you that the true position is what you were saying up until October 2022.
"What you have been saying since then is a complete fabrication."
Mr Burrows replied: "Why would I waste my time? I have got better things to do."
Antony White KC, for ANL, later asked Mr Burrows whether his evidence was revenge, which he denied, adding: "I am not a person for carrying around grudges."
In his 2025 statement, Mr Burrows said he first met Mr Johnson in late 2020, and "repeatedly" told him that he had never carried out work for the Daily Mail or Mail On Sunday.
He said that he began working for Mr Johnson, researching "possible claims against newspapers arising from historic allegations of unlawful information gathering".
He added that the pair fell out in 2022, and that while he had provided a witness statement in support of legal claims in relation to the News Of The World, he "was not asked to sign a statement in any claim against about:blank Associated Newspapers Limited".
In his witness statement, Mr Johnson said that he had "no reason to believe" that the signature on the 2021 statement was not authentic, and that it was witnessed by a third party.
The purported 2021 statement said Mr Burrows offered a "price menu" for services and that tapping landlines was his "USP".
It said that his work for newspapers started in 2000 with the Mail On Sunday, and that requests made were "always for unlawful private information and for unlawful information gathering" by Mail On Sunday news editor Paul Henderson.
Mr Henderson told the court in his evidence last month that the disputed statement was a "litany of lies" and that it was "absolutely incorrect" that he had commissioned Mr Burrows to carry out unlawful activities.
Mr Burrows then said last year that he "did not recognise" the 2021 statement and that its contents were "substantially untrue", adding that its signature was forged and that he believed it was "prepared by others without my knowledge".
He said he was unaware of his purported 2021 statement until reading about it in a newspaper in 2023.
Mr Sherborne previously said in written submissions that it was "impossible" for the signature on the 2021 statement to have been forged, and that the allegation was "wild and unsubstantiated".
He said that the statement was Mr Burrows' "true evidence", and that it contained "consistent, detailed, candid statements which it is submitted are plainly in Mr Burrows' own words".
During Mr Burrows' evidence, Mr Sherborne asked the judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, to find that he was a "hostile witness", claiming that the private investigator was "not desirous of telling the truth".
Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that Mr Sherborne could cross-examine the witness on that basis.
The trial is due to conclude later this month.

Thanks @Lunde and @AgileRobin

Archive link https://archive.is/RNAAf

I must confess I had been wondering if GB really was going to say in court that it had been forged, or if somehow there would be a less definitive explanation.

I assume that he will be able to show which is his real signature, for example on bank documents or driving licence.

Thanks @PrayForMyBum

So they did end up being allowed to treat Burrows as a hostile witness

He was treated as a hostile witness because he could not stomach the BS that DS was spewing. He did a good job I think, and he was a voluntary witness and the Judge made a point of thanking him for giving evidence, voluntarily!

I find it interesting that the example given is based on his 2025 signature - surely it would have more credibility if he could produce examples of 2021 signatures (or those around that time) which bear more resemblance to his 2025 one than the supposed signature on the contested statement.

are they saying the signature was a digital or hand written one? I believe nobody witnessed him sign it personally so I don’t know how they could be sure either way it was his. But obviously a digital signature can look very different.

could a handwriting expert confirm if the two signatures were from the same hand? Hard to know if the limitation here is from the questioning or from the reporting, which is frustrating. I wish we had a full transcript.

I personally think that he no longer needs to offer proof. He was very adamant in court today, and so I think this is the end of what has probably been a very long journey for him and most likely his family. He was a voluntary witness, he showed up an gave his side of the story!

So under oath, Burrows has said that claimants have made up fake evidence for monetary gain and then continued the deception in court? In other words, fraud and perjury, with Sherborne colluding? Bloody hell.

Sherborne has badly miscalculated this. At best, I'm thinking the Judge will have to give no weight to Burrows's original 2021 statement - which leaves the claimants without credible claims. At worst, J Nicklin's judgement could allude to dishonesty on the part of the claimants and their counsel.

Or could the Judge pick and choose bits of Burrows's evidence today to accept, and bits to reject? I think that would be highly unusual. Usually either a witness is deemed to be credible under examination and cross-examination, or they're not.

But I'm just rambling, really.

The solicitor who gave evidence said the signature was done digitally, using some sort of solictor software system, I think. I remember not finding it terribly convincing, given that plenty of couriers know how to cut-and-paste (or fake) a digital signature, but it's obviously up to the Judge.

I think Sherborne needs to find proof not Burrows.

@elessar It's not an example - it's his signature on the 2025 witness statement that he made for the court (he denies making the 2021 statement).

If the court requires it he certainly could give examples of signatures from that time - that's what I was suggesting in my post.

I agree that digital signatures often look very different to non-digital ones, but usually the letters will start/finish at the same place.

Agree - in civil cases the burden of proof is on the claimants.

Quite a bit more about what actually happened in court in the Guardian's version of today's proceedings.

Burrows actually says lots of what he said to Graeme Johnson was 'banter' between them and it ended up in the 2021 statement....!! He also told Sherborne he had been 'conned' by GJ and went to ANL in 2023 after finding out about the 'statement' to save Baroness Lawrence from the same fate. Wow.

Media
Private investigator in Prince Harry case says admissions in his name ‘a pack of lies’
about:blank Michael Savage
Michael Savage Media editor
764 words
23 March 2026
16:02
The Guardian
GRDN
English
© Copyright 2026. The Guardian. All rights reserved.

Gavin Burrows said claimants in case against Daily Mail publisher ‘very misled’ over his work
A private investigator whose disputed confessions of illegal activity form a key part of the case brought by about:blank Prince Harry and others against the Daily Mail’s publisher has said the admissions were “a thing of fiction”.
Giving highly anticipated evidence at the high court, Gavin Burrows said the claimants in the case, as well as their lawyers, had been “very misled” over his work, adding that the supposed admissions in his name were “a pack of lies”.
Burrows, who only agreed to give evidence from a secret location overseas, said he believed his signature had been traced on to a witness statement outlining extensive alleged wrongdoing.
Doreen Lawrence, about:blank Prince Harry and Elton John are among the seven people who are suing about:blank Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over alleged unlawful information gathering.
The court has already heard claims that Burrows bugged the windowsills of celebrities and hacked the information of those close to them, such as John’s gardener. about:blank Prince Harry also alleged Burrows tapped and hacked the phone of a friend.
In the witness statement from August 2021, Burrows apparently confessed to phone tapping, bugging and a series of other unlawful activities on behalf of ANL. The publisher strongly denies the allegations, describing them as lurid and preposterous.
In a later statement he still stands by, Burrows said he had never conducted any unlawful activity for the publisher or been asked to do so. He now alleges the signature on his original confession had been forged.
Finally appearing in court after months of legal argument about his evidence, Burrows repeatedly said he had never written or signed the original disputed witness statement.
“I did not write the statement, I don’t recognise anything in the statement,” Burrows said. “You can tell that that is not even a proper signature. I can tell that it was faked and traced.
“I only read about my statement a year and a half later in the newspaper … There has been this whole kind of theatre built around me.”
David Sherborne, the claimants’ lead barrister, successfully requested to question Burrows as a hostile witness as he made the forgery claims.
Burrows claimed the statement had been orchestrated by about:blank Graham Johnson, a former phone hacker who turned to examining unlawful activity in the press, who later joined the claimants’ research team in the ANL case.
He said he only ever worked with Johnson because he thought he was being used for his “expert opinion”. The court has already heard he was paid £75,000 by about:blank Johnson, including for working on a memoir.
Burrows said the disputed confession contained a litany of admissions that included everything “apart from calling me Jack the Ripper”. He asked Sherborne: “Do you actually really believe anyone’s going to write a statement [like that]?”
“Your little creator of this has gone too far,” he said, referring to Johnson. “I believe he’s conned you, Mr Sherborne.”
In written submissions, the claimants’ legal team has said it was impossible for the Burrows signature on the 2021 statement to be forged, adding that it was a “wild and unsubstantiated” claim.
In court, Burrows said he thought he was being “nice and kind” to Lady Lawrence by contacting ANL in 2023 to say he had never made the confession. “I thought I was saving Baroness Lawrence from being conned. Things escalated, I guess,” he said.
Burrows also went on to question the validity of his signatures on other documents in other cases relating to unlawful activities by newspapers.
At one point, Burrows said he had been “taking the piss” out of Johnson in some of his conversations with him, stating the researcher had been repeatedly asking him about any work he had done for ANL. He claimed Johnson then entered the “banter” into evidence.
What was previously dubbed in court the “Burrows conundrum” has hung over the entirety of the three-month, multimillion-pound case.
Sherborne said Burrows had been content with his original evidence until he fell out with Johnson over money in 2022. “You decided to switch sides out of revenge against Mr Johnson,” Sherborne said.
Sherborne said the 2021 witness statement was “entirely consistent and true that you acted for about:blank Associated Newspapers”.
Burrows denied Sherborne’s assertions.
Sherborne also said Burrows had been aided by legal funding from ANL. Burrows said he had not received money directly.
The case continues.

Thanks @PrayForMyBum

Archive link to Guardian https://archive.is/AwZVv

From what I've read, Burrows' evidence today is more consistent with his position since 2023 ('I didn't write that load of rubbish'), than it is with his supposed position in 2021 (The Great Confession to Dodgy Johnson).

His saying that he was 'taking the piss' rings true. Of course men like Burrows and Johnson would fall out over money and be inveterate piss-takers. It's the nature of the beast.

So interesting. But Burrows is merely speaking the truth, and that has been in my view, accurately reflected in Court. He had a great deal to say. And I am glad he did

Anyone else starting to think the next court case will be Prince Harry et al suing Sherborne?