🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered information by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are mostly false.”

He added that he had “never” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed claims against newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he desired to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.