Witness in Prince Harry Legal Action Alleges Admission Was False

A inquiry agent central to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company rejects the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was told claims against publications were expected to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to choose whether he desired to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.