🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to place bugs inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on strong medication after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony said he was told claims targeting newspapers were expected to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to decide if he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.