🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others 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, associated with the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered intel by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have told the court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were probable to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped being employed for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to determine whether he desired to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.