🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the accusations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong analgesics after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was told allegations targeting publications were likely to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in that year, said he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to take place before the end of the year.