Key Figure in Prince Harry Legal Action Alleges Admission Was False

A PI central to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious accusations of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company disputes the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.

His statement claimed he was advised lawsuits against publications were expected to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

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

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to choose if he desired to request a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.