🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most serious claims of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained intel by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement said he was advised allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to decide whether he wanted to request a court order to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the case is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.