🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of illegal data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained intel by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was told claims against publications were probable to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to decide whether he desired to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.