🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the gravest allegations of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the testimony are largely false.”

He added that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with inquiry on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for advice.

His statement claimed he was advised claims against newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

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 request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister one week to decide if he wanted to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.