🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy medication after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with research on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed claims targeting newspapers were expected to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to determine if he desired to request a court order to compel the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.