🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was told allegations targeting newspapers were likely to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted the barrister one week to choose if he desired to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.