🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest accusations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged testimony 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 disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose whether he wished to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.