🔗 Share this article

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

The investigator, linked to the gravest allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired intel by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information seemingly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his purported statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with research on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was told claims against publications were expected to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the end of the year.