🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest accusations of illicit information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by breaching voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to place listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy medication after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with research on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for guidance.

His statement said he was informed claims against publications were expected to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wanted to request a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.