🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most serious allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired intel by hacking voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as employing PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He added that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were likely to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

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

The judge gave Sherborne one week to determine if he wished to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

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