🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony said he was told allegations targeting publications were expected to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to decide whether he wished to request a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.