🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious accusations of unlawful data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits against publications were probable to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, stated he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to decide whether he desired to seek a court order to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.