🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on evidence allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely false.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy medication after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.

His statement claimed he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were expected to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in that year, said he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

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

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wanted to request a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

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