🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest allegations of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired intel by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as employing PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have told the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony said he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to choose if he desired to request a court order to call the witness, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.