LONDON— A pivotal witness in Prince Harry’s high-stakes privacy lawsuit against the Daily Mail’s publisher stunned London’s High Court on Monday, March 23, by denying he signed a damning statement against the tabloid and accusing the claimants of being “conned” by a web of lies.
Private investigator Gavin Burrows, whose testimony could sway the trial’s outcome, testified via videolink from an undisclosed overseas location, citing threats to his family. He flatly rejected a 2021 witness statement attributed to him, in which he allegedly admitted targeting “hundreds, possibly thousands” of people for Associated Newspapers through landline tapping, voicemail hacking, and deception. “This statement has nothing to do with me,” Burrows declared, insisting his signature was faked and that he first learned of the claims through a newspaper report.
The case, pitting Harry, the younger son of King Charles, alongside Elton John and five others against Associated Newspapers (publishers of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday), alleges decades of unlawful information gathering, including phone-hacking. Associated vehemently denies wrongdoing, framing the suit as a fabricated campaign funded by press opponents like the late Max Mosley.
During tense cross-examination, claimants’ lawyer David Sherborne treated Burrows as a hostile witness, accusing him of flipping his story after a fallout with researcher Graham Johnson, a former phone-hacker turned tabloid critic. Johnson had claimed Burrows received £75,000 ($100,747) for a book deal and documentaries, but their partnership soured in 2022.
Burrows countered that he knew nothing of the litigation until 2023, when he grew “absolutely furious” at being dragged in and approached Associated to protect claimants like Doreen Lawrence from deception. “You have got to explain to your claimants how you have been conned,” he told the court. “The whole thing is a pack of lies… a thing of fiction.” He also denied ever working for or being paid by Associated.
Burrows, the trial’s final witness since January, delivered testimony that bolsters Associated’s defense of a “research team” allegedly paying witnesses for manufactured evidence. Closing arguments are expected later this month, leaving the fate of this landmark privacy battle hanging in the balance.