Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Confession Was Fabricated
A inquiry agent central to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.
The investigator, linked to the gravest allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “completely false”.
Context of the Alleged Statement
The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is opposing the legal action.
Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations
Several of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.
Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.
In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the contents”.
Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”
He continued that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.
Context of the Original Testimony
The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.
He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid ÂŁ600 a time for guidance.
His statement said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.
Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.
Present Court Situation
Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.
Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.
The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide if he desired to request a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.
A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.
