🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illicit information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained data by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his purported statement in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy painkillers after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying against media outlets.

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

His statement said he was advised claims against publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, stated he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, 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 court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to decide whether he desired to request a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.