🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious claims of unlawful data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained intel by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing confidential calls. The defendant denies the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was told allegations against newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the end of the year.