Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Confession Was False

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained intel by breaching voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to install listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on accusations of spying against publications.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised claims against newspapers were expected to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, stated he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to choose whether he wished to apply for a court order to call the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is expected to be held before the end of the year.