🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most serious allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing confidential calls. The defendant disputes the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement said he was informed claims against publications were probable to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased working for publications in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to decide if he wished to seek a court order to call Burrows, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the case is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.