🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe claims of illicit information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the group of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as employing PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on accusations of spying against publications.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told allegations against publications were expected to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister one week to choose if he desired to seek a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.