🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to position bugs inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with inquiry on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was advised allegations against publications were expected to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist 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 features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide whether he wished to seek a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.