🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the accusations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed claims targeting newspapers were likely to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for publications in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to decide if he wished to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.