🔗 Share this article Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Confession Was False A PI integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard. The investigator, associated with the most serious accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”. Context of the Purported Confession Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday. The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to place bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is defending the case. Withdrawal and New Claims Several of the individuals have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator. Burrows had before retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company. In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”. The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.” He stated further that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”. Context of the Original Statement The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on allegations of interception against publications. He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for advice. His statement said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”. The investigator, who said he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”. Present Legal Situation Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case. A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as rumor. The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”. A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.