🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most serious claims of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The company disputes the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony said he was advised allegations targeting publications were expected to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to request a court order to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the case is projected to be held before the end of the year.