Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Admission Was False

A PI central to the court case brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained intel by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a time for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was told claims targeting newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped working for publications in 2003, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to decide if he wished to request a court order to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.