🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement 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 accuracy of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to determine whether he desired to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.