🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on information seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting publications were likely to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped working for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to decide whether he wished to request a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.