🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his supposed confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits against publications were probable to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.