🔗 Share this article

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

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of illicit information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired data by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a fake. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His statement said he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wished to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.