🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of illegal information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on information seemingly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the substance of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on powerful painkillers after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with research on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for advice.

His statement said he was advised allegations against publications were expected to settle privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped operating for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to choose if he wanted to apply for a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.