🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex 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 heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of illegal information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained intel by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the group of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information seemingly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on powerful analgesics after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His statement indicated he was told lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.