🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained intel by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with research on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, stated he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.