🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most serious claims of illicit data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the statement are largely false.”

He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task concerning the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His statement claimed he was informed claims targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued working for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister one week to choose if he wished to request a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.