🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered information by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed statement in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped operating for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine if he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the end of the year.