🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most serious claims of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring PIs to place listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and accessing personal discussions. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong medication after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with investigation on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for guidance.

His statement said he was advised allegations targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he wished to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.