A pivotal witness in Prince Harry’s privacy case against a British tabloid shocked London’s High Court Monday by claiming his crucial testimony was fabricated and his signature was forged.
Private investigator Gavin Burrows, whose evidence could determine the lawsuit’s outcome, testified that the legal action “was based on a pack of lies.”
Prince Harry, King Charles’ younger son, along with six other prominent individuals including musician Elton John, filed suit against Associated Newspapers’ publications. They allege the company engaged in extensive illegal information collection, including phone hacking activities spanning three decades.
The publisher, which operates the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, has rejected all allegations of misconduct.
According to the plaintiffs’ legal team, Burrows provided a witness statement in August 2021 claiming he had “targeted hundreds, possibly thousands of people” on behalf of Associated through various illegal methods, from wiretapping phone lines to stealing voicemail messages and obtaining data through fraudulent means.
These accusations form a major portion of the plaintiffs’ legal argument.
However, Burrows later contacted Associated’s attorneys claiming he never provided such testimony and that someone had falsified his signature. He told the court he first learned about the allegations supposedly made by him through newspaper coverage.
“This statement has nothing to do with me,” Burrows declared during his video testimony from an undisclosed international location, citing safety concerns for himself and his family due to threats received.
During heated questioning with plaintiffs’ attorney David Sherborne, who received court approval to treat Burrows as a “hostile” witness, Burrows stated: “You have got to explain to your claimants how you have been conned. This thing is based on a pack of lies.”
Associated’s defense team has characterized the entire case as artificially constructed and financially backed by media opponents, including deceased Formula One executive and privacy advocate Max Mosley. They claim a “research team” supporting the plaintiffs’ lawyers compensated witnesses for their testimony.
Sherborne challenged Burrows’ credibility, suggesting he changed his story only after a dispute with Graham Johnson, a member of the research team. Johnson, a former journalist with a phone-hacking conviction who now documents tabloid misconduct, previously testified that Burrows had agreed to participate in book and documentary projects for which he received 75,000 pounds ($100,747.50), with their partnership dissolving in early 2022.
Burrows claimed ignorance about his involvement in the Associated case until January 2023, when he became “absolutely furious” upon learning his name was connected to it. He said he contacted the publisher because he believed plaintiff Doreen Lawrence, an anti-racism activist, was being deceived.
“The whole thing is a thing of fiction,” he testified, denying any employment or payment relationship with Associated.
Burrows represents the final witness in the trial that commenced in January, with closing arguments scheduled for later this month.
