🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious accusations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the group of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on strong medication after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was informed claims targeting publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped working for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wanted to apply for a court order to call the witness, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

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