🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the gravest claims of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered intel by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to place bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously disavowed his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony said he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to request a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.