🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired information by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the group of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing personal discussions. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were likely to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to determine if he desired to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.