New Report Claims Prince Harry Knew His Lawsuit Was Doomed Before Court Battle Began
Tom Sykes has shared fresh claims about Prince Harry's failed lawsuit and what his legal team allegedly knew.
Prince Harry recently faced a major setback when the UK High Court ruled against him in his privacy lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Ltd. However, royal expert Tom Sykes has made a major revelation about the case.
In a post on his Substack, The Royalist, Tom Sykes highlighted fresh reporting by investigative journalist Michael Gillard, who previously worked with The Sunday Times Insight team and The Guardian's investigations unit. He has been following the Daily Mail hacking case since the very beginning and has been right about it "at almost every turn."
Sykes then pointed to Gillard's latest The Upsetter article, saying it contains what he believes is the biggest revelation. He apparently obtained a letter, which is an "admission hidden in correspondence between the claimants and the judge."
The newly disclosed letter suggests Harry's legal team and the other claimants knew private investigator Gavin Burrows had already stopped cooperating before the lawsuit was even filed. Burrows had been one of the key figures supporting the wider case.
Sykes revealed that the letter, sent to Mr Justice Nicklin on January 26 as the trial was getting underway, states that the claimants first became aware Burrows had "probably withdrawn cooperation," back in March 2022, indicating he was unwilling to testify on their behalf.
Moreover, Burrows allegedly confronted Graham Johnson, the lead researcher for the claim, at his south London home, where he is accused of assaulting and threatening him in front of his family before cutting off communication. Burrows later gave evidence via video link from Asia during the trial, telling the court he was too afraid to appear in person.
Despite Burrows' alleged withdrawal, Sykes wrote that the lawyers went ahead and filed the lawsuit on March 22, 2022. He also noted that the public did not learn Burrows had distanced himself from his original evidence until 2025, when a written submission rejecting his earlier statement surfaced.
Furthermore, the claimants had "conclusive evidence of his withdrawal of co-operation" by March 2023, after Associated Newspapers submitted a witness statement from Burrows denying the allegations included in the case. “That is to say, conclusive proof their star witness had gone, fully two years before trial. And still they pressed on,” the royal expert commented.
The latest claims come weeks after Harry strongly criticized the High Court's decision to dismiss the case. Following the ruling, the Duke wrote in a statement, “It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected. However, the lengths to which the Court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.”
