Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Confession Was Untrue

A PI integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe claims of illicit data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired information by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to place bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to determine if he desired to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.