🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired data by hacking voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring PIs to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with research on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony said he was told claims against publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped working for publications in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide if he desired to seek a court order to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.