🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of illicit data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained data by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company disputes the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the details of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense 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 that year, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to decide if he desired to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.