🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging PIs to position listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task concerning the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with investigation on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for counsel.

His statement claimed he was advised claims against newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to determine whether he desired to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.