Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Confession Was Untrue

A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered information by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring PIs to place bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the statement are mostly false.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was told allegations targeting publications were expected to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to decide whether he desired to request a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.