Witness in Prince Harry Case Alleges Admission Was False

A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most serious accusations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to install bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with research on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was advised allegations against newspapers were likely to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to choose whether he wanted to apply for a court order to call Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.