🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

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

His statement said he was told lawsuits against publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to choose whether he wished to seek a court order to call the witness, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.