🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of illicit data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for guidance.

His statement said he was advised claims targeting newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in that year, said he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine if he desired to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.