🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained information by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with research on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.