🔗 Share this article Key Figure in Prince Harry Case Alleges Admission Was Untrue A PI central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard. The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”. Context of the Alleged Statement Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday. The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to position bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the legal action. Retraction and New Allegations Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence apparently acquired by Burrows. The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group. In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”. Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are mostly inaccurate.” He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”. Context of the Initial Testimony Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with research on allegations of interception targeting publications. He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for counsel. His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”. The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”. Present Legal Status The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the trial. Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay. The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide if he desired to seek a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”. A additional court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.