🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious claims of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered intel by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the claims and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on heavy painkillers after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with investigation on allegations of interception against newspapers.

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

His statement claimed he was informed claims against newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to decide whether he desired to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the end of the year.