🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by hacking voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The company disputes the claims and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on powerful medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose whether he wished to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

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