🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired intel by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as employing private investigators to position bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company rejects the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on powerful analgesics after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was told allegations against publications were likely to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister one week to decide if he wished to request a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.