🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of illicit information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing confidential calls. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “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 phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy medication after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement said he was told allegations against publications were probable to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he desired to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the end of the year.