🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained information by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful analgesics after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were probable to settle privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose if he wanted to seek a court order to compel the witness, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to occur before the end of the year.