🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are largely false.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for advice.

His testimony indicated he was told allegations against publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

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

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to determine if he wished to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.