🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired data by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony indicated he was informed claims targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister one week to choose if he desired to seek a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the end of the year.