🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained information by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, stating he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for guidance.

His statement claimed he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were likely to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to choose if he wished to request a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.