🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of illegal data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with research on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was advised claims targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, 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 court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wished to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

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