🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe claims of illicit information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong painkillers after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on accusations of spying against media outlets.

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

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

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