🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest accusations of illicit information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are mostly false.”

He added that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for guidance.

His statement said he was advised claims against newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in that year, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to determine if he wished to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.