🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the group of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with research on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was told allegations targeting newspapers were expected to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to determine if he desired to seek a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.