🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He added that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations against newspapers were probable to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to determine whether he wished to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.