🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his supposed admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by hacking voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed claims against newspapers were likely to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for publications in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to determine if he wanted to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.