🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered information by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations against publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to determine whether he wanted to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.