🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on information allegedly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on powerful medication after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with research on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony said he was told lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to apply for a court order to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.