🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement claimed he was advised allegations against publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to decide if he desired to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.