🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as employing private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “never” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on strong analgesics after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired help with research on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told lawsuits targeting publications were probable to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, said he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine whether he desired to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.