🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by accessing voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the details of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for advice.

His statement claimed he was informed claims against newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased working for publications in that year, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.