🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired data by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted support with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement said he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to request a court order to compel the witness, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.