🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to position bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on heavy painkillers after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony indicated he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were probable to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to seek a court order to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

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