🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe claims of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered data by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful medication after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with research on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told lawsuits targeting publications were expected to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wanted to apply for a court order to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.