🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained intel by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, saying he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial 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”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with research on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for advice.

His testimony said he was informed allegations against newspapers were expected to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose if he wanted to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

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