🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most serious allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to position listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for advice.

His statement claimed he was informed allegations against newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.