Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Confession Was False
A PI integral to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.
The investigator, connected to the most serious claims of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.
Context of the Purported Confession
The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained information by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The publishing group is accused by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is defending the legal action.
Withdrawal and New Allegations
Five of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.
The witness had previously retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.
In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the information”.
The investigator said: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are largely false.”
He stated further that he had “not once” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.
Context of the Original Statement
Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting publications.
He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for advice.
His statement said he was told allegations against newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.
Current Court Status
Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.
Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.
The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to decide whether he desired to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.
A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.