Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Admission Was Untrue

A PI at the heart of 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 testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the accusations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a instance for counsel.

His statement said he was advised claims targeting publications were probable to settle privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide if he wished to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.