🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely false.”

He continued that he had “never” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations against publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for publications in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to decide whether he desired to request a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.