🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information seemingly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a time for counsel.

His testimony said he was told claims against publications were likely to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to determine if he wished to apply for a witness summons to call Burrows, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.