🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most serious claims of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered intel by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the substance of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “never” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony indicated he was told allegations against newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to apply for a court order to call the witness, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.