🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of unlawful data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing confidential calls. The company denies the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely false.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one task involving the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy analgesics after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was advised allegations against publications were expected to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to decide if he desired to seek a court order to call Burrows, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.