🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information allegedly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the details of the testimony are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits against publications were likely to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in that year, said he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to request a court order to summon the witness, and told him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.