🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered information by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The defendant denies the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy analgesics after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a instance for guidance.

His testimony said he was told claims targeting publications were likely to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted the barrister one week to determine whether he wished to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.