Key Figure in Prince Harry Legal Action Alleges Confession Was False

A PI central to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of illicit data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, stating he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on strong medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement said he was advised lawsuits against publications were likely to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

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

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to choose if he desired to seek a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.