🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on evidence apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His statement said he was told lawsuits against publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped working for publications in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine if he desired to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the end of the year.