🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as employing PIs to place bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with research on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to seek a court order to call Burrows, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

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