Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Admission Was Untrue

A PI central to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as employing private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told allegations targeting publications were likely to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.