🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of illicit information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to position bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one task involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to apply for a court order to call the witness, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.