🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe claims of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as employing private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed 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 recent testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with inquiry on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.