🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on strong medication after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for advice.

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to determine whether he desired to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.