🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most serious accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the accusations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for guidance.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations targeting publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped operating for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to decide if he desired to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the case is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.