Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Claims Admission Was False

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company rejects the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his purported statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the statement are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was told allegations targeting newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for publications in that year, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to decide if he wished to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the case is projected to occur before the end of the year.