🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring PIs to position listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were likely to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wanted to seek a court order to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.