🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered data by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the claimants have told the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful analgesics after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed claims targeting publications were likely to settle privately, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, said he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to decide if he desired to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

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