🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of illegal information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are substantially false.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.

His testimony said he was advised claims against publications were likely to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine whether he desired to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.