🔗 Share this article

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

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered data by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to position bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the contents of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told claims against newspapers were probable to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to choose whether he desired to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.