🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered data by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

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

Burrows had previously disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with inquiry on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for advice.

His statement claimed he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

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

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine if he wished to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.