🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful medication after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

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

His statement said he was told allegations targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for publications in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to choose whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.