🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained intel by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as employing PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one task involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed claims targeting publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped operating for publications in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to determine if he wished to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and told him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.