🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was advised claims against publications were likely to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to decide if he wanted to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.