🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for advice.

His statement claimed he was told allegations against publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to determine if he wished to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.