🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case brought by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired intel by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful medication after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with inquiry on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for advice.

His testimony indicated he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, said he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.