🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant denies the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was advised allegations targeting newspapers were likely to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness provided evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

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