Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Admission Was False

A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most serious allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His statement claimed he was told allegations targeting publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

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

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.