🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered information by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, stating he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was advised allegations against publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to decide whether he desired to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.