Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Admission Was Fabricated
A PI at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.
The investigator, linked to the gravest claims of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.
Context of the Alleged Confession
The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is charged by the claimants of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring PIs to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.
Retraction and New Claims
Several of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence apparently acquired by the investigator.
Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.
In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.
Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”
He stated further that he had “not once” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.
Circumstances of the Initial Statement
The witness claimed he was on heavy medication after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting publications.
He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for counsel.
His statement indicated he was told claims targeting publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.
The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.
Current Court Status
The witness was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.
A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as hearsay.
The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.
A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.
