🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely false.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with research on accusations of spying against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told allegations against newspapers were likely to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued working for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he desired to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.