🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained information by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to position listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant denies the claims and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for counsel.

His testimony said he was advised allegations targeting publications were probable to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to choose whether he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.