🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained data by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He added that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told allegations targeting newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he wanted to request a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.