🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe claims of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained intel by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired help with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was told allegations targeting newspapers were likely to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to choose if he wished to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.