🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy medication after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was advised claims against publications were probable to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, asserted he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to choose if he wanted to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.