🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered information by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. 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 authorizing illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept 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 autograph on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on powerful medication after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for advice.

His testimony indicated he was told lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to determine whether he desired to request a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.