Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Claims Confession Was Fabricated
A PI integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.
The investigator, connected to the most severe claims of unlawful data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.
Background of the Purported Statement
Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The media company is alleged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as employing private investigators to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the claims and is defending the case.
Retraction and Fresh Claims
Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.
Burrows had previously retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.
In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.
Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”
He continued that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.
Circumstances of the Initial Testimony
The witness said he was on powerful medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.
He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated ÂŁ600 a session for advice.
His testimony claimed he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.
Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.
Present Court Status
The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.
Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.
The judge granted the barrister seven days to determine if he wanted to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.
A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.
