🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his supposed admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by hacking voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job involving the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement indicated he was told allegations against newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to determine whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

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