A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.
The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.
Background of the Purported Confession
Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is accused by the group of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.
Withdrawal and Fresh Claims
Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.
Burrows had earlier retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, stating he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.
In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.
The investigator said: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”
He added that he had “never” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.
Circumstances of the Initial Testimony
Burrows stated he was on powerful analgesics after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against media outlets.
He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for counsel.
His statement indicated he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.
The investigator, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.
Current Court Status
Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.
Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as secondhand information.
The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to decide whether he wished to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.
A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to be held before the end of the year.
