🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired information by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a time for counsel.

His testimony said he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

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