Witness in Prince Harry Case Alleges Admission Was Untrue

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest accusations of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as employing PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on information seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely false.”

He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong medication after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for guidance.

His statement claimed he was advised claims against publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.