🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious claims of illegal data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired data by hacking voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have told the high court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his purported statement in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against publications.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was told allegations targeting publications were likely to settle privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped being employed for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to choose if he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.