🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by hacking voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for counsel.

His statement said he was told lawsuits against newspapers were expected to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to determine if he wanted to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.