🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most serious claims of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered data by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company rejects the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, saying he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said 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 information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for advice.

His statement said he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased operating for publications in that year, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to decide whether he wanted to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.