🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired data by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

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

The witness had earlier retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy medication after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with research on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement said he was told allegations against publications were expected to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

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