🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy medication after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to decide whether he desired to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.