Prince Harry’s legal representatives have announced their intention to mount an appeal following a High Court ruling that declined to protect the identity of a crucial witness in their lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited.
The witness, referred to only as “Berlin” in court proceedings, had sought anonymity due to concerns about personal safety and potential threats to family members if their identity became public during the unlawful information gathering claim.
David Sherborne, representing Prince Harry and other claimants, informed the London court on Wednesday that his team would take the matter to the Court of Appeal after Mr Justice Nicklin rejected their anonymity application.
The judge stated: “I am not satisfied that the claimants have demonstrated clear and cogent evidence that an anonymity order is necessary in this case.”
Berlin’s testimony is expected to corroborate allegations concerning private investigator Gavin Burrows, who forms a central part of the claimants’ case.
According to written submissions from Mr Sherborne: “Berlin provides crucial witness evidence, namely supporting the claimants’ case that Gavin Burrows undertook various forms of UIG for the defendants.”
The barrister argued that Berlin harboured genuine concerns about potential violence and threats should their identity be disclosed during proceedings.
The legal action extends beyond Prince Harry to encompass several prominent figures, including Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, civil rights campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, and former Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes.
Prince Harry’s lawyers confirm plans to challenge anonymity decision in Daily Mail case
|
GETTY
These claimants have brought allegations that ANL engaged in or arranged illegal practices, including the installation of surveillance equipment in vehicles, fraudulently obtaining confidential documents, and intercepting private telephone communications.
The publisher has rejected these claims and continues to mount a defence against the accusations.
Private investigator Mr Burrows has been characterised as pivotal to the most severe allegations of illegal information collection practices.
Court documents reveal that Mr Burrows allegedly made contradictory statements, with an August 2021 declaration claiming he had compromised “hundreds, possibly thousands of people” using methods including voicemail interception, telephone line surveillance, and obtaining confidential financial and health records for a Mail on Sunday journalist.
LATEST ROYAL DEVELOPMENTS
However, a subsequent statement to ANL’s legal team in September this year saw Mr Burrows dispute having signed the earlier document.
Mr Sherborne noted: “Mr Burrows has signed conflicting witness statements,” adding that a witness summons was issued on November 18, 2025.
He emphasised: “Berlin’s evidence supports the earlier witness statements of Mr Burrows where he admits to engaging in UIG for the defendant.”
ANL’s counsel, Antony White KC, challenged the relevance of Berlin’s testimony and the grounds for confidentiality protection, stating in written arguments: “The evidence does not even begin to meet the relevant threshold.”
The proceedings before Mr Justice Nicklin are scheduled to conclude on Thursday.
A spokesman for Associated Newspapers said: “Associated Newspapers is currently applying to the Court to have many of these claims struck out as inadmissible.
“As we have said from day one, we vehemently deny these preposterous allegations.”