🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful painkillers after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was informed allegations targeting publications were likely to settle 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 “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

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

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide if he wished to apply for a court order to call the witness, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

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