🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of illegal information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired data by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed claims targeting publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to choose whether he desired to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.