🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of illicit information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired information by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy medication after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed claims against newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, stated he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.