🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of illegal data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to install bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful medication after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for guidance.

His statement said he was informed allegations against newspapers were expected to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.