NEWS – “without comment”
Key whistleblower contradicts part of phone hacking case against Daily Mail
Private investigator denies telling Doreen Lawrence he was involved in bugging her
The Guardian – Daniel Boffey Chief reporter
Published: Dec 11, 2025
A key whistleblower supporting a legal claim headed by Prince Harry and Doreen Lawrence against the publisher of the Daily Mail appears to have dealt a last-minute blow to the case against the media group.
Just weeks before a high court trial, Jonathan Rees, a private investigator who has supported claims of unlawful news gathering at Associated Newspapers, has contradicted a central allegation in the claimants’ case.
Speaking to C4’s Dispatches, Rees denied admitting to Lawrence that he was involved in bugging her after the racially motivated murder of her 18-year-old son, Stephen, in 1993.
Lawrence had claimed in a witness statement drafted before trial that private investigators had admitted tapping her landlines, hacking her voicemails and bugging a cafe where she used to hold meetings.
Her statement goes on to say that Rees, who has been previously convicted of perverting of the course of justice, confirmed to her that he had done work for the Daily Mail aimed at secretly stealing information about her.
Speaking to C4’s Cathy Newman, Rees said that this was not the case. “I’d been offered by other agents to assist in this surveillance,” he said. “But I didn’t get involved.”
Challenged by Newman that Lawrence’s witness statement was “based on your confirmation that you had done the bugging operation for the Mail”, Rees responds: “Right, well they’re going to have to rethink that, and their legal team is going to have to re-think that.”
Asked if his comments “blow a hole” in the case against Associated Newspapers, Rees responds: “Not really because it was done. All I can say to support that woman is yes I did hear about it, yes I was invited to be a part of the team, yes I saw, I did see, factual transcripts, I know it was going on, I know that the surveillance teams were being used against her and her family. But I can’t provide any documentary evidence for that.”
Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) is accused by seven claimants, including Sir Elton John and his husband, David Furnish; Elizabeth Hurley; Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes, of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations.
ANL denies the allegations and is defending the legal action. ANL has said that allegations of unlawful information gathering in relation to Lawrence are “appalling and utterly groundless smears”.
Last month, a second private investigator central to the legal action by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail claimed that his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful information, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.
Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
Five of the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the legal action against ANL based on evidence apparently obtained by Burrows.
Burrows previously retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh, 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court last month, he restated his denial, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of ANL.
Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)
www.WAPI.org
Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.