🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the statement are mostly untrue.”

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

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

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

His testimony claimed he was advised claims against newspapers were expected to settle privately, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

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

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to request a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.