🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the group of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring PIs to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one task involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His statement said he was informed claims targeting newspapers were likely to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to decide if he desired to request a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.