🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely false.”

He added that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for advice.

His statement indicated he was told lawsuits against newspapers were likely to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

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

Present Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to choose whether he desired to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.