Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Admission Was False
A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.
The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.
Background of the Alleged Statement
Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered intel by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is opposing the legal action.
Retraction and Fresh Allegations
Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by the investigator.
The witness had earlier withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.
In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the material”.
Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”
He added that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.
Circumstances of the Original Testimony
The witness stated he was on heavy analgesics after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.
He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid ÂŁ600 a instance for counsel.
His statement indicated he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to settle privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for publications in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.
Current Court Situation
Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.
A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.
The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to request a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.
A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.
