🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe claims of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on information seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are substantially false.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy medication after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed allegations against newspapers were likely to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to decide whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.