🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained information by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as employing private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his purported statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister one week to determine if he wished to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.