🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of illegal information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the group of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to position bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with research on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was advised allegations against publications were expected to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to request a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.