Lawyers for Prince Harry face allegations of fraud and dishonesty in a High Court battle with the Mail. Photo / Getty Images
The Duke of Sussex’s lawyers have been accused of dishonesty, fraud and conspiracy in his High Court claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
Prince Harry, Baroness Lawrence and Sir Elton John are among seven claimants seeking damages over allegations that journalists hired private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blag” private records and access private phone conversations.
The duke will fly to Britain for the opening of the trial against Associated Newspapers next week. He is due to give evidence during the week.
David Sherborne, for the claimants, told the court that the publisher planned to make “exceptionally serious” allegations that were “wholly objectionable”.
He said he would object to Associated’s skeleton argument being made public unless the “multiple express allegations of serious wrongdoing by some of the (claimants’) legal representatives” were removed.
“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.”
They include suggestions that solicitors were involved in a “camouflage scheme” to conceal when two of the claimants, Sir Simon Hughes and Sadie Frost, first knew they had a potential claim.
The publisher also alleged a solicitor and a member of their research team “deliberately and fraudulently created a ‘misleading email chain’” and that payments had been made for sworn evidence.
The law prevents claims being brought more than six years after the claimant became aware of an allegation.
Sherborne said “allegations of this kind are spread out throughout (Associated’s) written submissions and it is unclear as to what is precisely being alleged and against whom.
“These allegations are not pleaded ... It would be grossly unfair to permit unpleaded allegations to be made against individuals.”
Justice Nicklin ruled that Associated must in part amend its written submissions.
“The camouflage scheme that is relied upon by the defendant goes further than an attack on credibility,” he said.
However, he ruled that the issue of payments to witnesses “can only be relevant to credibility” and there was scope to argue those involved may have been influenced by the money.
In another development before the nine-week £38 million ($88m) trial, the court heard that Gavin Burrows, the private investigator whose disputed evidence was instrumental in persuading many of the claimants to sue, believes there has been “a blatant attempt to intimidate him” on the eve of the trial.
Burrows is so fearful for his safety that he does not want the parties involved to know his whereabouts and has applied to give evidence remotely, with his location concealed even from lawyers.
Tom Poole, for Burrows, said the private investigator had “always been fully willing to give evidence voluntarily but is concerned that by doing so he puts himself at personal risk”.
He added: “He was contacted yesterday afternoon by Byline Times, which he understands works in close connection with the claimants’ legal representatives.
“He rightly or wrongly has interpreted the email – which was saying that they are going to be publishing an article about him today ... he has interpreted that rightly or wrongly as a blatant attempt to intimidate him at the commencement of trial before he is due to give evidence.”
It has previously been alleged that Byline Investigates – a sister publication – has been used to advance the claimants’ arguments since before litigation even began.
Many such stories have been written by Graham Johnson, a convicted phone hacker who used to work for the News of the World and has since aligned himself with campaign group Hacked Off. He is now a core member of the claimants’ legal research team and has been gathering evidence against Associated for several years.
Burrows has told the court that a witness statement dated August 2021 in which he appeared to admit targeting “a large number of private individuals” over a number of years, including Prince Harry and Sir Elton, by hacking phones and bugging cars was “prepared by others without my knowledge”.
He insists that his pivotal witness statement was “completely false” and the signature on the statement a “forgery”.
Burrows is unable to attend court as he lives abroad and has been advised not to take long-haul flights because of a medical condition, Poole said.
The judge said he may be forced to take the “very unorthodox approach” of allowing the court to know his location but not the parties. Otherwise, he asked whether solicitors and counsel could be made aware of his whereabouts on the basis that they must not share it more widely. Poole said that his client was “considering his position”.