🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he wished to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the case is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.