🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained information by breaching voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to install bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought 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 am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with research on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed lawsuits against publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to decide whether he wished to request a court order to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.