🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered data by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His statement claimed he was advised claims targeting publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he desired to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.