🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained intel by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to position listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on evidence apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fake. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.

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

His statement claimed he was advised allegations against newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister one week to choose if he wanted to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.