🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his supposed statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped working for publications in that year, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to choose whether he wished to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the case is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.