Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Confession Was Untrue

A PI at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and accessing personal discussions. The company disputes the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose if he wished to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.