🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained intel by accessing voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the group of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

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

The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to decide whether he wanted to request a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.