🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed 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 dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His statement said he was advised claims against newspapers were likely to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to choose if he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.