🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained intel by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have told the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on powerful medication after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was told allegations against publications were probable to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister one week to decide whether he wished to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.