🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony indicated he was told lawsuits against newspapers were likely to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased working for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to decide if he wanted to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.