Key Figure in Prince Harry Case Claims Confession Was False

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have told the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told lawsuits against publications were likely to settle privately, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.