🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most serious accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered information by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as employing PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task concerning the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement said he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped being employed for publications in that year, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister one week to choose whether he wished to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.