🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by breaching voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to place bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and intercepting confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement said he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were likely to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued working for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

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