🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to position bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing confidential calls. The defendant denies the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on information apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong medication after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were likely to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose if he desired to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to occur before the end of the year.