🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired intel by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was advised allegations targeting publications were expected to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped working for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.