🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant disputes the allegations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have told the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He added that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong medication after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations targeting publications were expected to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to choose if he desired to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.