Точка Синхронізації

Solicitor Anjlee Sangani admitted during a High Court hearing in London on Monday that she did not personally witness private investigator Gavin Burrows sign a witness statement detailing illegal information-gathering for Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), a document that is now central to a high-stakes privacy lawsuit brought by high-profile figures including Prince Harry and Sir Elton John. The court proceedings aim to determine the validity of the 2021 confession, in which Burrows reportedly admitted to bugging, phone tapping, and hacking while working for the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. The integrity of this document is being scrutinized because Burrows has since backtracked, alleging that the confession was forged and that he never consented to its contents. During her testimony, Sangani explained that she had signed off on the document based on the understanding that it represented Burrows' true account, despite her absence during the physical signing process. This revelation has provided an opening for ANL’s legal team to challenge the credibility of the primary evidence supporting the claimants' case. The publisher has consistently and vigorously denied all allegations of industrial-scale lawbreaking, characterizing the claims as unsubstantiated and based on unreliable testimonies. The defense argues that if the signature was not properly verified by the solicitor, the entire foundation of the unlawful information-gathering claim is compromised. The implications of this testimony are significant for the group of claimants, which also includes Baroness Doreen Lawrence and David Furnish, who allege their private lives were systematically invaded by the media giant over several decades. If the court finds that the investigator's confession was indeed flawed or manufactured, it could lead to the dismissal of the most serious charges against ANL. Conversely, the claimants argue that the tactics used by the publisher were so pervasive that the confession, regardless of the signing controversy, reflects a broader truth about the company's internal operations. The trial continues as the court examines the chain of custody for the disputed documents and the professional conduct of the legal representatives involved.