🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe claims of illegal information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, saying he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics 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 assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

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

His statement claimed he was advised allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to apply for a court order to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.