🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, retracted his supposed confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired information by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company disputes the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the details of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” 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”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told claims against newspapers were likely to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased operating for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to seek a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is projected to take place before the end of the year.