🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The company disputes the claims and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to decide if he desired to seek a court order to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.