🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging PIs to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the accusations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful medication after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.

His statement said he was informed claims targeting publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to seek a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.