<p id=”par-1_13″><a href=”https://www.cheatsheet.com/news/prince-harry-described-taking-witness-stand-4-words.html/”>Prince Harry’s privacy saga</a> has just taken a fresh and unexpected twist. </p>
<p id=”par-2_49″>What recently seemed like a <a href=”https://www.cheatsheet.com/news/win-prince-harry-phone-hacking-lawsuits-may-not-change-much-commentator-says.html/”>settled front in his long-running legal battle</a> has now been shaken by the sudden emergence of a contradictory claim from a private investigator. That claim has prompted new legal manoeuvres, raised questions about key evidence, and ushered the dispute into an even murkier phase.</p>
<p id=”par-3_10″>Here’s what just threw a monkey wrech into everything. </p>
<h2 class=”wp-block-heading” id=”h-prince-harry-s-long-standing-fight”>Prince Harry’s long-standing fight</h2>
<p id=”par-4_45″>The Duke of Sussex has for years been locked in litigation with major British newspaper publishers — notably Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and News Group Newspapers (NGN) — over allegations of unlawful information-gathering: phone-hacking, private investigator intrusion, voicemail interception, and other invasions of privacy. </p>
<figure class=”wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-9-16 wp-has-aspect-ratio” id=”emb-1″><div class=”wp-block-embed__wrapper”>
<iframe loading=”lazy” title=”Prince Harry appears in court to testify against British tabloid publisher #shorts” width=”563″ height=”1000″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/liRxjoV_bac?feature=oembed” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share” referrerpolicy=”strict-origin-when-cross-origin” allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div></figure>
<p id=”par-5_39″>He secured a notable victory when the High Court found that one publisher’s phone-hacking practices were “widespread and habitual.” One of his lawsuits against NGN concluded in a settlement and public apology from the publisher for its unlawful intrusion.</p>
<p id=”par-6_42″>However, the High Court in London has now heard that the private investigator whose alleged confession of hacking led to other celebrities, including Prince Harry, to sue the publisher of the Daily Mail, has claimed his signature on the statement was forged.</p>
<h2 class=”wp-block-heading” id=”h-the-new-twist-a-pi-s-retraction”>The new twist: A PI’s retraction</h2>
<p id=”par-7_34″>Former private investigator, Gavin Burrows, who had provided a witness statement in 2021 declaring involvement in illegal activity on behalf of ANL, has now withdrawn that statement, saying it was forged and false. </p>
<figure class=”wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-9-16 wp-has-aspect-ratio” id=”emb-2″><div class=”wp-block-embed__wrapper”>
<iframe loading=”lazy” title=”The one word Prince Harry said to press as he arrived in court on Tuesday | HELLO!” width=”563″ height=”1000″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/mIJksaWcWRI?feature=oembed” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share” referrerpolicy=”strict-origin-when-cross-origin” allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div></figure>
<div class=”related-article related-article–simple”>
<span class=”related-article-flag”>Related</span>
<p class=”related-article__title”>
<a href=”https://www.cheatsheet.com/news/prince-harry-blanks-taylor-swift-charli-xcx-feud-trolling-truly-clueless.html/”>
Prince Harry Blanks on Taylor Swift and Charli XCX Feud — Was He Trolling or Truly Clueless? </a>
</p>
</div>
<p id=”par-8_54″>Burrows states he does <em>not</em> recognize the 2021 statement that bore his name. He believes his signature on it is a forgery and that much of the wording was not his. He says that his only work for ANL involved legitimate duties unrelated to illegal information-gathering and contradicts the earlier claim of unlawful activity.</p>
<p id=”par-9_50″><a href=”https://www.aol.com/articles/witness-harry-privacy-case-says-122355025.html” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>BBC</a> noted that Burrows said, “I do not recognize the earlier witness statement of Aug. 16, 2021, and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”</p>
<p id=”par-10_20″>Harry’s legal team has responded strongly, describing the new claim as a “scurrilous” attack on parts of their case. </p>
<h2 class=”wp-block-heading” id=”h-what-comes-next”>What comes next?</h2>
<p id=”par-11_11″>Following Burrows bombshell claim, many are wondering what comes next. </p>
<p id=”par-12_39″>Well, the court will likely need to rule on if Burrows’ new statement can be admitted (or whether the earlier statement will be struck out) and whether the retraction qualifies as hearsay or needs further viva voce (live) testimony.</p>
<p id=”par-13_58″>Harry’s legal team may need to seek additional corroboration — e.g., contemporaneous documents, other PI witnesses, internal records — to shore up the parts of the case that relied on Burrows’ initial statement. And ANL’s defense will almost certainly seize on this event to argue the entire claim may be weakened or time-barred if foundational evidence is unreliable.</p>
<p id=”par-14_24″>Depending on how the judge rules, the case might be narrowed further (fewer allegations proceeding), or some parts might be dropped or settled early.</p>
<p id=”par-15_84″>This development is a potent reminder that even high-profile litigation, involving public figures and powerhouse media defendants, is vulnerable to the same evidentiary minefields as any private dispute. Witness statements, chain of custody, authenticity of documents — all of these matter tremendously. For Harry, whose legal and public-image strategy has been deeply intertwined with his media-lawsuit efforts, this twist adds new risk. On the flip side, Harry still has earlier favorable rulings (for example against Mirror Group) and strong momentum from previous wins. </p>