🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case filed by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence allegedly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely false.”

He added that he had “never” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His statement claimed he was told lawsuits targeting publications were likely to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to request a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the case is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.