🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to install listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy analgesics after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was advised allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose whether he desired to request a court order to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.