🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest accusations of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong medication after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement claimed he was told claims against newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to decide whether he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.