Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Admission Was Untrue

A private investigator central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to install listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially false.”

He added that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy analgesics after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with research on accusations of spying against publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for counsel.

His statement said he was told claims targeting publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.