Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Claims Admission Was Untrue

A private investigator integral to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are mostly false.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

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

The judge gave the barrister one week to decide if he wished to request a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.