🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired intel by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired help with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, stated he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister one week to choose if he wished to apply for a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.