🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and accessing personal discussions. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his purported statement in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong analgesics after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for guidance.

His statement said he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were expected to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he wished to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.