Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Confession Was Fabricated
A PI central to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.
The investigator, linked to the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his supposed confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.
Background of the Alleged Statement
Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is contesting the case.
Retraction and Fresh Allegations
Five of the claimants have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information seemingly obtained by the investigator.
The witness had previously withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.
In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.
The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”
He stated further that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.
Circumstances of the Initial Statement
Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.
He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a instance for advice.
His statement claimed he was told claims against publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.
Burrows, who claimed he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.
Current Court Situation
Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.
A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as rumor.
The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.
A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.