Here is the complete news article written in markdown format.

---

Investigator 'did unlawful stuff' regarding Harry, court hears

LONDON – A London High Court has heard explosive testimony detailing how a private investigator, hired by journalists from Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), engaged in "unlawful stuff" to gather information on Prince Harry. The evidence, presented in a witness statement, paints a stark picture of a transactional and clandestine economy where private data was a commodity, allegedly commissioned and paid for by major media corporations.

The revelations are a central pillar in the Duke of Sussex's high-stakes legal battle against MGN, the publisher of the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, and The People. The case scrutinises the publisher's potential corporate liability for illicit information-gathering practices dating back to the mid-1990s, threatening significant financial and reputational consequences.

The Heart of the Matter: A Business of Intrusion

At the core of the proceedings is the business model of private investigator Gavin Burrows. In a witness statement presented to the court by Prince Harry's legal team, Burrows described a systematic process of targeting the Duke and his associates.

David Sherborne, counsel for Prince Harry, detailed how Burrows was "instructed by MGN" to investigate the Duke's life. The court heard that Burrows admitted his actions went far beyond legitimate inquiry, delving into methods that were explicitly illegal.

• Unlawful Methods: Burrows' statement reportedly confesses to targeting Prince Harry from a young age, using methods described as "blagging" — obtaining private information like phone records and financial data through deception — and other forms of surveillance. He expressed regret for his actions, noting the significant impact on the Prince's security and mental well-being.

• Targeting Associates: The investigator's reach extended to the Prince's inner circle, including his former girlfriend, Chelsy Davy. Burrows admitted to targeting Ms. Davy and her circle to unearth information about her relationship with the Prince, describing the level of intrusion as "ruthless."

MGN's lawyer, Andrew Green KC, has challenged the reliance on Burrows' evidence, noting that the investigator is not being called to testify in person, which prevents cross-examination. MGN denies the majority of the claims and argues that many are brought too late. However, the publisher has previously admitted to one instance of unlawful information gathering against the Duke.

A Lucrative Enterprise: The Economics of Data Brokering

The case shines a harsh light on the economic drivers that fueled the tabloid industry's demand for private information during the 1990s and 2000s. Burrows' career trajectory, as outlined in court, exemplifies the creation of a supply chain built to service this demand.

After working as an in-house investigator for US news programs, Burrows identified a burgeoning market in the UK. Facing a deluge of requests from British newspapers, he established a new company specifically to act as an "independent supplier of data to British tabloid reporters." This business model effectively turned private information into a saleable asset.

• Key Service: Burrows positioned his enterprise as a data brokerage firm, sourcing and selling information that was difficult or impossible for journalists to obtain through legal channels.

• Target Market: His primary clients were reporters at competing national newspapers, all vying for sensational, exclusive stories about high-profile individuals like Prince Harry.

• Economic Driver: The intense commercial rivalry between tabloids created a perpetual "arms race" for scoops. This competition directly funded a shadow economy of private investigators who were allegedly willing to operate outside the law for a fee, creating a clear financial incentive for illegal activity.

From Contractor to Corporate Liability

The central legal question extends beyond the actions of a single investigator. Prince Harry's case aims to establish a direct line of responsibility from the third-party contractor (Burrows) to the corporate entity that published the resulting stories (MGN).

The argument is that MGN's journalists were not passive recipients of information but active commissioners of unlawful acts. The publisher's knowledge of, and payment for, these services is the foundation of the claim. This transforms the issue from one of individual misconduct to one of systemic corporate failure.

• Chain of Command: The claimant's case alleges that journalists at MGN tasked and paid investigators like Burrows, making the publisher directly culpable for the methods used to acquire the information that filled their pages and drove newspaper sales.

• Risk and Governance: If proven, the allegations would represent a profound failure of corporate governance and risk management at MGN during that period, exposing the company to substantial damages for historical wrongdoing.

A Lingering Shadow over the Media Industry

This trial does not exist in a vacuum. It is the latest chapter in a long-running reckoning for the British press that began with the phone-hacking scandal over a decade ago. That crisis led to the closure of the News of the World, criminal convictions, and the wide-ranging Leveson Inquiry into press ethics and practices.

The financial and operational fallout from that era was immense, costing media organisations billions in legal fees, victim compensation, and restructuring costs.

• The Precedent: The widespread phone-hacking at News Group Newspapers (publisher of The Sun and the former News of the World) set a powerful precedent, establishing that publishers could be held financially liable for illegal newsgathering on an industrial scale.

• The Financial Impact: The total cost of the phone-hacking scandal to the British newspaper industry is estimated to be well over £1 billion, a figure that continues to climb as new civil claims are settled.

• Industry Scrutiny: The ongoing legal challenges, including Prince Harry's, ensure that the internal practices and ethical standards of major media groups remain under intense legal and public scrutiny.

What Lies Ahead: The Financial and Reputational Stakes

The trial, which is expected to last for several weeks, continues. Prince Harry is scheduled to give evidence in person, a rare and historic moment for a senior member of the Royal Family.

For Mirror Group Newspapers, the stakes are exceptionally high. A victory for Prince Harry could not only result in a significant damages award but also embolden other potential claimants, potentially opening the door to a new wave of costly litigation related to historical practices. The reputational damage from having these methods detailed in open court is already accumulating.

Ultimately, the judgment will have lasting reverberations, further defining the boundaries of corporate responsibility in the media sector and serving as a stark reminder of the immense financial and legal risks associated with the once-thriving, and allegedly illicit, trade in private information.