🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company disputes the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on information allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy painkillers after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with research on phone-hacking claims against publications.

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

His statement indicated he was advised claims against newspapers were probable to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to decide whether he desired to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.