🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on heavy painkillers after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

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 testimony indicated he was informed allegations against newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to choose if he wanted to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.