The resolution of Prince Harry’s remaining legal battle with British newspapers may depend on whether a judge finds a private investigator credible, after the detective previously confessed to surveillance activities targeting the royal family member.
During closing arguments Tuesday, an attorney representing the Daily Mail’s publisher argued that the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex alongside celebrities like Elton John, Sadie Frost, and Elizabeth Hurley falls apart based on testimony from investigator Gavin Burrows, who denied conducting surveillance work for the newspaper or its sister publication, the Mail on Sunday.
In his final argument, defense attorney Antony White stated that a document Burrows supposedly signed — which he later rejected — claiming he “must have done hundreds of jobs” for the Mail from 2000 to 2005 had sparked the legal action.
However, Burrows, who previously expressed regret to Harry in a BBC program for aggressively pursuing him for tabloids during his teenage years, testified he never performed such activities for the Mail. He claimed the document was created by the plaintiffs’ legal representatives and his signature was falsified.
Throughout the 11-week High Court proceedings, Judge Matthew Nicklin repeatedly questioned the plaintiffs’ attorney about the case’s viability if Burrows’ original statement was dismissed. The judge will deliver a written decision at a later date.
Lawyer David Sherborne argued that substantial additional evidence exists showing the newspapers engaged in illegal information collection, including employing other investigators, reporters, and freelance journalists to hack phones, intercept voicemails, and gather information through fraudulent means.
Harry and six additional plaintiffs are pursuing “a substantial award of damages, including aggravated damages,” according to Sherborne. Legal expenses alone are estimated to approach 40 million pounds ($52 million).
This trial represents the concluding phase of Harry’s extended conflict with British tabloid media. He seeks to make newspapers answerable for previous misconduct and transform what he has characterized as a harmful media landscape.
Harry and fellow plaintiffs are pursuing legal action against Associated Newspapers Ltd. for privacy violations. Additional plaintiffs include anti-racism campaigner Doreen Lawrence, former politician Simon Hughes, and John’s spouse, David Furnish.
They allege the publications engaged in “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” spanning two decades to conduct surveillance on them.
Associated Newspapers rejected the accusations as “preposterous,” maintaining that approximately 50 disputed articles relied on legitimate sources, including friends, royal staff members, and publicists who voluntarily provided information to journalists. The company also argued that claims reaching back to the 1990s were submitted beyond acceptable time limits.
While Sherborne claimed payment records to private investigators corresponded with publication dates of questioned articles, White dismissed this as speculation and argued the case depended too heavily on assumptions.
Harry testified early in the January trial that media intrusions made him “paranoid beyond belief,” damaged his relationships, and affected his mental well-being.
During cross-examination, he adopted a protective stance and became emotional, stating that tabloids had made his wife Meghan’s life “an absolute misery.”
Harry has connected his media hostility to his mother Princess Diana’s death, who died in a 1997 automobile accident while being chased by photographers, and to what he describes as continuous press harassment of his wife that influenced their choice to reduce royal responsibilities and relocate to the United States in 2020.
Harry previously secured a favorable ruling in a phone hacking case against the Daily Mirror’s publisher and received a settlement and apology from Rupert Murdoch’s Sun and the now-closed News of the World.
The Mail trial has proceeded differently from the Mirror case, featuring significantly more current and former journalists and editors testifying to deny using illegal methods for stories about Harry’s numerous relationships — particularly regarding former girlfriend Chelsy Davy — his godfather responsibilities, and his deceased mother.
Several reporters identified their sources and challenged Harry’s claim that his “social circles were not leaky.”
“They were not all tight lipped,” said Katie Nicholl, a former Mail on Sunday editor, regarding Harry’s associates. “I had very good sources in the inner circle.”
