🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was told lawsuits targeting publications were expected to settle privately, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to choose if he desired to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.