Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Confession Was Fabricated

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most serious accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion 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 fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to determine whether he desired to seek a court order to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.