🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and accessing personal discussions. The company disputes the allegations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely false.”

He added that he had “never” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.

His testimony said he was told allegations targeting publications were expected to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.