🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained information by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as employing private investigators to position bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased being employed for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to choose if he wished to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.