Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Admission Was False
A PI at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.
The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of illegal information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.
Context of the Alleged Confession
The private eye had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company disputes the accusations and is contesting the case.
Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations
Several of the individuals have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on information seemingly gathered by Burrows.
Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.
In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the material”.
Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are mostly false.”
He stated further that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task concerning the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.
Circumstances of the Original Testimony
Burrows said he was on powerful analgesics after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.
He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a instance for counsel.
His testimony said he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.
Present Legal Situation
Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.
Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as secondhand information.
The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose if he desired to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.
A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.