🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained information by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging PIs to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the claimants have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “never” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful medication after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted support with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was advised claims targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to decide if he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.