🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the gravest claims of illicit information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the group of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company disputes the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on information apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with research on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for advice.

His statement indicated he was told allegations against newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose if he wanted to request a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is expected to take place before the end of the year.