A PI integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.
The investigator, linked to the most serious claims of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged admission, declaring it was “completely false”.
Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the accusations and is contesting the case.
Several of the individuals have informed the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.
The witness had before disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.
In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.
Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”
He stated further that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.
Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on accusations of spying against publications.
He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for counsel.
His testimony indicated he was advised allegations against newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.
The investigator, who said he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.
The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.
Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.
The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.
A further court session in the legal action is projected to be held before the end of the year.
