🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was told claims against publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to decide whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent court session in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.