🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of illegal information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony claimed he was told claims targeting newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to decide if he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the legal action is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.