🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired data by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with research on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was advised claims against publications were expected to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide whether he desired to request a court order to call the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.