🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest claims of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring PIs to position listening devices inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have told the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony allegedly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with research on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was told allegations against publications were probable to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he desired to request a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.