🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the gravest allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained information by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, saying he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the information”.

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

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for advice.

His statement said he was advised claims targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to determine if he wished to request a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent court session in the case is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.