🔗 Share this article Key Figure in Prince Harry Case Claims Confession Was False A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard. The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported statement, declaring it was “completely false”. Context of the Alleged Confession The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained information by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication. The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the legal action. Retraction and New Claims Five of the claimants have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator. The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company. In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”. The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.” He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”. Circumstances of the Initial Testimony Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with research on allegations of interception against media outlets. He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for guidance. His testimony claimed he was told claims targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”. Burrows, who claimed he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”. Current Legal Status The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case. A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as hearsay. The judge gave the barrister one week to choose if he wished to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”. A additional court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.