🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to position listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on powerful medication after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His statement indicated he was told allegations against publications were probable to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wished to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.