🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as employing PIs to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy analgesics after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for advice.

His statement claimed he was told claims targeting publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose whether he wanted to request a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.