A High Court judge has permitted a private investigator at the centre of Prince Harry’s privacy lawsuit against the Daily Mail’s publisher to give testimony remotely without disclosing his whereabouts.
Gavin Burrows, whose original statement appeared to confess to carrying out numerous illicit acts for Associated Newspapers Limited, now maintains that document is “completely false.”
The investigator has consented to appear via video link from an overseas location during the ongoing trial, but insists his precise whereabouts must remain hidden from legal representatives due to fears for his safety.
Mr Burrows has alleged that Graham Johnson, a convicted phone hacker currently employed as a researcher for the claimants, made threats against his life.
A High Court judge has permitted a private investigator at the centre of Prince Harry’s privacy lawsuit against the Daily Mail’s publisher to give testimony remotely without disclosing his whereabouts.
|
GETTY
David Sherborne, the barrister representing all seven claimants, opposed permitting Mr Burrows to testify while keeping his location secret.
He accused the private investigator of “effectively holding a gun to the head of the court and to the head of the parties.”
Mr Sherborne argued that Mr Burrows had deliberately placed himself in this situation and was withholding information that should properly be disclosed.
“He is holding a gun to the court’s head,” the barrister told the hearing.
The claimants’ legal team had attempted to serve a witness summons on Mr Burrows, but this effort proved unsuccessful as he had already departed the United Kingdom.
David Sherborne, the barrister representing all seven claimants, opposed permitting Mr Burrows to testify while keeping his location secret.
|
GETTY
Mr Burrows has cited personal safety concerns as justification for concealing his location, pointing to the alleged threat from Mr Johnson.
Mr Justice Nicklin rejected these arguments, determining that Mr Burrows’ testimony was too crucial to exclude from proceedings.
The judge emphasised that the private investigator had been “an important figure in this litigation from the outset.”
According to the claimants’ case, Mr Burrows allegedly conducted various unlawful activities between 2000 and 2007, including intercepting voicemails, obtaining information through deception, tracking vehicles and accessing computer records.
These allegations constitute “a central plank” of the claims brought against Associated Newspapers Limited, the judge noted.
“Mr Burrows’ evidence is a major component of the claimants’ case,” Mr Justice Nicklin stated, warning that without his testimony, “a substantial number of allegations of unlawful information gathering made against the defendant and its journalists could not be sustained.”
Mr Sherborne argued that Mr Burrows had deliberately placed himself in this situation and was withholding information that should properly be disclosed.
|
GETTY
The journalist allegedly responsible for commissioning Mr Burrows has denied any connection with him.
The seven individuals pursuing the privacy claim are Sadie Frost, David Furnish, Prince Harry, Sir Simon Hughes, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John and Baroness Lawrence.
Mr Justice Nicklin observed that each claimant relies upon Mr Burrows’ disputed witness statement, making him “plainly the claimants’ witness.”
The judge acknowledged that in-person testimony would be preferable and that video evidence presents limitations, adding that courts must remain vigilant against witnesses attempting to dictate terms.
However, he concluded this was not such a case, noting that Mr Burrows cannot be compelled to testify.
“I have concluded that letting Mr Burrows give evidence via video link is a proper and fair way that best serves the interest of justice in this case,” he ruled.
Mr Sherborne indicated he would seek to cross-examine the investigator as a hostile witness.
The trial continues.