🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired information by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He added that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong analgesics after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony indicated he was told claims against publications were likely to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.