🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe claims of unlawful data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

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

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, stating he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with research on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.

His statement said he was informed lawsuits against publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased working for publications in 2003, asserted he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to decide if he desired to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

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