Prince Harry's final suit against British tabloids could hang on private eye's disputed statement

Defense lawyer Antony White said in his closing argument that a statement Burrows allegedly signed — and later disavowed — saying he “must have done hundreds of jobs” for the Mail between 2000 and 2005 had inspired the lawsuits.

But Burrows, who once apologized to Harry in a BBC documentary for ruthlessly targeting him for tabloids in his teen years, testified that he never carried out the skullduggery for the Mail. He said the statement was fabricated by the claimants’ legal team and his signature was forged.

Judge Matthew Nicklin, who oversaw the 11-week trial in the High Court and will issue a written ruling later, repeatedly asked the claimants’ lawyer what would happen to the case if he rejected Burrows’ original statement.

Attorney David Sherborne said there was a wealth of other evidence implicating the newspapers of unlawful information gathering, including the use by the papers of other investigators, journalists and freelance reporters to tap phones, intercept voicemails and obtain information through deception.

Harry and the six other claimants are seeking a “substantial award of damages, including aggravated damages,” Sherborne said. The legal costs alone have been estimated as reaching nearly 40 million pounds ($52 million).

The trial is the final chapter in Harry’s long‑running battle with the British tabloid press. He wants to hold newspapers accountable for past wrongdoing and reform what he has called a toxic media environment.

Harry and the claimants are suing Associated Newspapers Ltd. for invading their privacy. Other claimants are anti‑racism activist Doreen Lawrence, former politician Simon Hughes and John's husband, David Furnish.

They claim the newspapers relied on “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” over two decades to spy on them.

Associated Newspapers denied the allegations as “preposterous,” insisting the roughly 50 articles at issue were based on lawful sources, including friends, royal aides and publicists who offered information to reporters. The company also said claims dating back to the 1990s were filed too late.

While Sherborne said payment records to private eyes lined up with the dates of articles in question, White called that conjecture and said the case relied too heavily on inferences.

Harry testified at the start of the trial in January that press intrusions left him “paranoid beyond belief,” strained his relationships and took a toll on his mental health.

He took a defensive tone on cross-examination and choked up, saying the tabloids had made the life of his wife, Meghan, “an absolute misery.”

Harry has linked his media venom to the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a 1997 car crash while being pursued by paparazzi, and to what he has described as relentless press attacks on his wife that contributed to their decision to step back from royal duties and move to the United States in 2020.

Harry previously won a judgment in a phone hacking trial against the publisher of the Daily Mirror and got a settlement and apology from Rupert Murdoch’s Sun and the now-defunct News of the World.

The Mail trial has played out differently than the Mirror case, with far more current and former reporters and editors taking the witness stand to deny using any illegal means to write stories on Harry’s many romances — many about ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy — his role as a godfather and about his late mother.

Some reporters named sources and they disputed Harry’s assertion that his “social circles were not leaky.”

“They were not all tight lipped,” Katie Nicholl, a former Mail on Sunday editor, said about Harry’s associates. “I had very good sources in the inner circle.”