🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered intel by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was informed allegations against publications were expected to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to choose if he wanted to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

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