🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe claims of unlawful information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by hacking voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a time for counsel.

His statement said he was told claims against publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to choose if he wanted to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.