🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are largely false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job involving the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on strong medication after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for guidance.

His statement said he was advised claims against publications were probable to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose if he desired to request a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

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