🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his supposed admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered data by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as employing PIs to install bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with research on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement indicated he was informed claims targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.