🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the gravest accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired information by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.