🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained information by breaching voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to install bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his purported statement in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

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

His testimony said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased operating for publications in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to decide whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to take place before the end of the year.