Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Confession Was Fabricated
A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.
The investigator, connected to the most serious claims of illicit data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.
Context of the Alleged Confession
Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is alleged by the group of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the case.
Withdrawal and New Claims
Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.
Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.
In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.
The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”
He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.
Context of the Original Statement
Burrows stated he was on strong medication after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets.
He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid ÂŁ600 a time for guidance.
His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were likely to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.
The investigator, who claimed he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.
Current Court Situation
The witness was originally a witness for the group, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.
Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as secondhand information.
The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to apply for a court order to call the witness, and informed him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.
A further pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.
