🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on testimony seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told lawsuits targeting publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to decide if he desired to request a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.