Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Admission Was Fabricated

A private investigator integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by accessing voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to settle privately, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the case is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.