🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case brought by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most serious allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong medication after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His statement indicated he was advised claims against publications were likely to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to request a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

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