Prince Harry lawyers face fraud and dishonesty allegations ahead of High Court trial

David Sherborne, representing the claimants, told the court that the newspaper group intended to advance what he described as “exceptionally serious” allegations that were “wholly objectionable”.

“The allegations are exceptionally serious: of fraud, dishonesty and professional misconduct,” he said in written submissions. “The pleading of fraud or deceit is a serious step, with significance and reputational ramifications going well beyond the claim.”

The duke is one of seven claimants bringing the action, alongside Baroness Lawrence and Sir Elton John, who are seeking damages over allegations that journalists employed private investigators to place listening devices in cars, obtain private records by deception and access confidential phone conversations. The publisher has strongly denied the accusations.

Associated Newspapers has alleged that solicitors were involved in a so-called “camouflage scheme” designed to conceal when two of the claimants, Sir Simon Hughes and Sadie Frost, first became aware they may have had grounds to bring legal claims.

The timing is critical, as the law prevents claims from being issued more than six years after a claimant knew or should have known of a potential cause of action.

The publisher has also alleged that a solicitor and a member of the claimants’ research team “deliberately and fraudulently created a ‘misleading email chain’”, and that payments were made in connection with sworn witness evidence.

Mr Sherborne objected to the publisher’s written submissions being made public unless the allegations were removed, arguing that they were not properly pleaded and that it would be “grossly unfair to permit unpleaded allegations to be made against individuals”.

Mr Justice Nicklin ordered Associated Newspapers to amend parts of its written submissions, ruling that the alleged camouflage scheme “goes further than an attack on credibility”. However, he held that the issue of payments to witnesses could be relevant to credibility, with scope for the defendant to argue that those involved may have been influenced by money.

In a further development ahead of the nine-week trial, the court heard evidence concerning Gavin Burrows, the private investigator whose disputed material played a significant role in encouraging several claimants to pursue legal action.

Mr Burrows believes there has been “a blatant attempt to intimidate him” in the days leading up to the trial and has expressed fears for his personal safety. He has applied to give evidence remotely, requesting that his location be concealed not only from the public but also from the parties involved in the case.

Tom Poole, acting for Mr Burrows, told the court that his client “has always been fully willing to give evidence voluntarily but is concerned that by doing so he puts himself at personal risk”.

He said Mr Burrows had been contacted by Byline Times shortly before the trial, adding that Mr Burrows had interpreted the contact “rightly or wrongly” as an attempt to intimidate him ahead of giving evidence.

It has previously been alleged that Byline Investigates, a sister publication, has been used to advance the claimants’ arguments during the course of the litigation.

Mr Burrows has also told the court that a witness statement dated August 2021, in which he appeared to admit targeting a large number of individuals, including Prince Harry and Sir Elton, by hacking phones and placing listening devices in vehicles, was “prepared by others without my knowledge”.

He maintains that the statement was “completely false” and that the signature on it was a forgery.

Mr Poole said Mr Burrows lives abroad and has been advised not to undertake long-haul flights due to a medical condition.

Mr Justice Nicklin indicated that the court may need to consider “very unorthodox” arrangements regarding the disclosure of Mr Burrows’ location for his evidence to be heard.

The trial is expected to last nine weeks, with damages sought totalling £38million.