🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired information by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging 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 hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never performed 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 said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for advice.

His statement claimed he was told allegations against publications were likely to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister one week to choose if he wanted to seek a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.