🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest claims of illegal information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as employing PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment involving the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong medication after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was advised claims targeting publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped working for publications in that year, stated he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to choose if he desired to apply for a court order to call the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the case is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.