Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Admission Was Fabricated

A PI at the heart of the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained information by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to install bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly false.”

He added that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was advised allegations against publications were likely to settle privately, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in that year, said he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine if he wanted to seek a court order to summon the witness, and told him if the witness provided evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the end of the year.