🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most serious claims of illicit information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired data by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, saying he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly false.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with research on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was informed claims targeting publications were likely to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he desired to request a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.