🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired data by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to install listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing confidential calls. The company disputes the claims and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He added that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on strong painkillers after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for advice.

His testimony indicated he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to request a court order to call the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.