🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained intel by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the substance of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted support with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a time for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits against publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to request a court order to call Burrows, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.