🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained information by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the accusations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to request a court order to call the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

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