🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most serious claims of unlawful data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to place bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the claimants have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are substantially false.”

He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was informed claims against publications were likely to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.