Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Admission Was Fabricated

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe claims of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on accusations of spying against publications.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting publications were expected to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

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

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to decide whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

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