🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the contents of the statement are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His statement said he was informed lawsuits against publications were likely to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to determine whether he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.