🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely false.”

He continued that he had “never” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a time for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed claims against publications were likely to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.