🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe claims of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained intel by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as employing private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the contents of the testimony are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for counsel.

His testimony said he was advised allegations against newspapers were expected to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine whether he wished to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.