🔗 Share this article Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Admission Was Fabricated A PI integral to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told. The investigator, connected to the most severe claims of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”. Context of the Alleged Confession The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday. The media company is alleged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is defending the legal action. Retraction and New Claims Five of the individuals have told the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows. Burrows had previously retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company. In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the contents”. Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.” He added that he had “not once” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”. Context of the Initial Testimony The witness claimed he was on powerful medication after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on phone-hacking claims targeting publications. He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for advice. His testimony said he was informed lawsuits against publications were likely to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”. Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”. Present Court Situation Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case. A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor. The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine if he desired to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”. A further court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.