🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired information by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to install bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for guidance.

His statement said he was told allegations targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister one week to decide whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.