🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe claims of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing PIs to position bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have told the court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said 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 information”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong medication after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was advised claims against newspapers were probable to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped operating for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister one week to determine whether he wished to apply for a court order to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.