🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired information by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the accusations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for counsel.

His statement said he was advised allegations against publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to choose if he desired to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.