Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Confession Was False

A private investigator central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of unlawful information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have told the court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on information allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on strong painkillers after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for advice.

His testimony said he was informed claims targeting publications were likely to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.