🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the allegations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted help with research on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement said he was told lawsuits against publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to choose if he desired to seek a court order to call the witness, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.