Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Claims Admission Was Untrue

A private investigator integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe claims of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as employing PIs to place bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on strong medication after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations against publications were likely to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to choose whether he wished to request a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.