🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained information by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to choose whether he desired to request a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.