🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most serious accusations of unlawful data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged 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 much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations targeting publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to determine if he wished to request a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.