🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe claims of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging PIs to position listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the individuals have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was told claims targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he desired to request a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the case is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.