🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious accusations of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

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

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy medication after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

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

His statement claimed he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased working for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to choose if he desired to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness provided evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.