🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the group of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as employing PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony said he was told claims targeting publications were likely to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to choose whether he wished to request a court order to summon the witness, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.