🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most serious allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as employing private investigators to install bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.