If there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers. "Pickwick Papers" Charles Dickens (Statement by Paul Henderson, February 19, 2026, ANL case)
Amidst everything that happened yesterday, which was indeed newsworthy and will certainly go down in history, we continue with the ANL case.
And we turn to Paul Henderson, who worked at the newspaper and the Daily Mail between 1989 and 2005 in various positions.
Henderson, testified on February 19 denying that he ordered private investigators to intercept phones or communications of people close to Harry, rejecting the allegations in that regard in the trial against ANL.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-41796944.html
https://www.aol.com/articles/former-mail-journalist-denies-targeting-185316939.html
And here, there are two problems.
Let's start with the most curious one. Sherborne stated that "it would be proven at trial" that Mr. Henderson hired several private investigators, including Gavin Burrows, Daniel "Detective Danno" Hanks, Steve Whittamore through his company JJ Services, and Glenn Mulcaire.
You might be wondering, what is Sherbone talking about?
Ah, for those who haven't been following this closely, this case is to determine whether the lawsuits have expired. So, what would happen if Judge Nicklin decides that, for example, Harry's case hasn't expired? Then, and only then, would it go to trial on the merits, that is, on the phone hacking and everything else.
So, Sherbone is supposedly "saving" his evidence for that moment, when it's declared that nothing is time-barred and the other trial begins.
Guys, they've already spent over 40 million pounds on this. Imagine if there were a trial on the merits.
But Sherbone's supposed "trust" has a problem.
Henderson denied instructing private investigator Gavin Burrows to obtain information through deception, intercept phone communications, install surveillance equipment, or monitor vehicles. And here, Henderson is linked to Harry's articles: he denies hacking or tapping the phones of Prince Harry's friends, placing a wiretap or intercepting Guy Pelly's voicemail, illegally gathering information on Chelsy Davy, or carrying out any burglaries, nor against other high-profile individuals, including Hugh Grant, Carole Middleton, Elizabeth Hurley, Ken Livingstone, Peter Mandelson, Brian Paddick, and Simon Bates.
If Henderson has anything on Mandelson, now's the time to turn it in to the police 😁
But the point here is that Sherbone continues to consider Burrows' statement to be the correct one—the statement he claims he didn't sign, the one a former lawyer connected to the case says she didn't see Burrows sign, the one that was in Graham Johnson's possession. A statement from a witness who wants to testify via Zoom.
Now, given that Burrows is unreliable, and none of the supposed investigators are, how could Sherborne prove his point?
If the following exist:
- invoices from private investigators
- payment records
- internal emails
- editorial notes
- calendars or call logs
Sherborne can confront the witness with these documents. If Henderson responds “I don’t remember” or “I didn’t order it,” the court can still conclude that it did happen if the documentary evidence is consistent.
What did Sherborne say? Sherborne told Henderson, “You know perfectly well that you commissioned Mr. Whittamore on several occasions.” Henderson replied, “I don’t know perfectly well; I don’t remember any of this.”
And what proof does Sherbone have of Henderson provided by Whittamore? A handwritten contact list by that investigator in which Henderson's name appears.
If the plaintiffs' argument (led by Sherborne) is that Paul Henderson commissioned work from Gavin Burrows, but:
- Burrows recanted his previous statement,
- claims his signature was forged or that the statement does not reflect what he said,
- and has yet to formally testify,
then we have a serious problem with the integrity of the evidence.
In that scenario, the case against Henderson would depend almost exclusively on:
- financial documents,
- payment traceability,
- temporal correlation between articles and research activity,
- other researchers (if any).
Something Sherbone has not claimed to have.
And the most curious thing of all is that Sherbone seems to have forgotten the matter. This is a statute of limitations case, not the core issue of the lawsuit. So it turns out that Sherbone (again) failed to address the real issue, that is, the statute of limitations.
So what was Sherbone asking? If the plaintiffs manage to demonstrate that a hidden system of illicit acquisition existed, they can argue that:
- the statute of limitations did not begin until the pattern was reasonably discovered,
- or that the concealment prevented the timely exercise of the action.
At this stage, the statement does not serve to prove definitive liability.
It serves to:
- demonstrate concealment,
- justify delay,
- prevent the action from being time-barred.
What Sherborne is trying to do is persuade the judge that the allegation is serious and structural enough to justify extending the statute of limitations.
When a claim is past the ordinary statute of limitations (6 years), the plaintiff can only proceed if they successfully raise a defense, such as that provided in Section 32 of the Limitation Act of 1980: willful concealment or unreasonable impossibility of discovery.
For the judge to grant such an extension, it is not enough to simply say "I didn't know." The judge must be convinced that:
- There was more than just an isolated incident.
- There was a structured system or organized practice.
- That system was designed or operated in a way that prevented its detection.
- The plaintiff could not reasonably have discovered it earlier.
We always come back to "media culture".
So, Sherbone has a big problem here. A really ugly one.
Because, unlike White, who confronted his interrogators with documents, Sherbone hasn't. No compelling chain of evidence has emerged—at least not publicly—(emails, unambiguous invoices, clear instructions).
And this was the moment to show something. Not to wait for a hypothetical trial.
The case does not yet appear to have yielded a decisive piece of evidence that clearly crosses the threshold of s.32.
But it is not necessarily over; its fate will depend critically on whether documentary evidence or coherent testimony emerges that demonstrates actual concealment, not mere partisan suspicion.
And at the rate things are going, Sherbone will have to resort to Mr. Sockerby.
Henderson was still giving a statement today. We'll see if I can find out which media outlet is still covering this case, because almost all of them have focused on Andrew.
Harry, do you need new legal advice?
Posted Feb 20, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC