🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired data by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on information allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the statement are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with research on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for advice.

His statement said he was advised lawsuits against publications were likely to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to choose if he wished to request a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the case is projected to occur before the end of the year.