🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained information by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring PIs to place surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the accusations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” 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 reject the accuracy of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the substance of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were probable to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased operating for publications in that year, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge granted the barrister one week to determine whether he desired to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.