🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. 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 said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted support with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told allegations targeting newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide if he wished to request a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.