🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to position bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

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

The witness had before disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, stating he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful medication after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits against publications were probable to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to decide if he wished to request a court order to call Burrows, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.