🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the details of the testimony are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on strong analgesics after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for advice.

His statement said he was told allegations against newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to decide if he wished to request a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.