🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by breaching voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting publications were expected to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

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

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to determine if he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

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