🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, 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 previous testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the statement are largely false.”

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

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was told lawsuits targeting publications were expected to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for publications in 2003, stated he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide whether he desired to request a court order to call the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

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