🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company disputes the accusations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the details of the statement are substantially false.”

He added that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong medication after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised allegations against publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to choose if he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.