Prince Harry lawsuit witness says statement was forged

A key witness in the privacy case brought by Prince Harry and other high-profile figures against the Daily Mail has told London’s High Court that the plaintiffs were defrauded and refused to sign a damning statement against the newspaper’s publisher.

King Charles’s younger son Harry and six others, including singer Elton John, have accused Associated Newspapers tabloids of engaging in widespread illegal doxxing, including phone hacking, dating back 30 years.

Associated, which also publishes the Mail on Sunday, denied any wrongdoing.

The hearing has already heard evidence from Harry and other plaintiffs, as well as a number of current and former senior journalists and Associated employees.

Private investigator Gavin Burrows, whose testimony could decide the outcome, said on Monday that the case was “based on a load of lies”.

In August 2021, plaintiffs’ attorneys said Burrows signed a witness statement in which he said he “targeted hundreds, possibly thousands of individuals” for Associated, from tapping landlines and hacking voicemails to obtaining information through deception.

These allegations help form a key part of the plaintiffs’ case.

Burrows later told Associated’s legal team that he never made this statement and that his signature was forged, and told the court he first heard of the allegations attributed to him by reading a newspaper report.

Burrows, who testified from a location abroad saying he and his family had received threats, told the court via video link: “This statement has nothing to do with me.”

“You need to explain to the plaintiffs how you were defrauded,” he said during acrimonious exchanges with their lawyer David Sherborne, who was allowed to treat his own witness as an “enemy.”

“This thing is based on a lot of lies.”

Associated has suggested that the entire case was fabricated and financed by press opponents such as the late motor racing magnate and privacy advocate Max Mosley, and that an “investigative team” assisting the plaintiffs’ lawyers paid witnesses to provide evidence.

Sherborne accused Burrows of lying and suggested he only decided to change his evidence after he fell out with one of his investigating team, journalist Graham Johnson, who was convicted of phone hacking and now writes about the illegal activities of the tabloids.

Johnson had previously told the court that Burrows agreed to a book deal and help with documentaries and was paid STG75,000 ($A142,971) and their relationship broke down in early 2022.

Burrows said he had no knowledge that his name would be used in the related case until January 2023, when he became “absolutely outraged” that his name was linked.

He said one of the plaintiffs, racism campaigner Doreen Lawrence, approached the publisher because she thought she had been defrauded.

“The whole incident is fiction,” he said.

He told the court he had never worked for or received a salary from Associated.

Burrows was the last witness in the trial, which began in January and will give closing statements towards the end of this month.