🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to position bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on powerful analgesics after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

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

His testimony said he was told claims targeting newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued working for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.