🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired information by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment involving the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was advised allegations targeting publications were likely to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to decide whether he wanted to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.