🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest claims of illegal information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging PIs to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the substance of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told lawsuits against publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to determine whether he wished to seek a court order to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.