🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most serious accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered data by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to place bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

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

His testimony said he was informed claims against publications were probable to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to choose whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to call Burrows, and told him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is expected to be held before the end of the year.