🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered information by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject 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 signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the details of the testimony are substantially false.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one task concerning the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.