🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the group of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the claims and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely false.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task involving the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on strong medication after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with research on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony claimed he was told claims targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for publications in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to decide if he wished to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.