🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant disputes the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in that year, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to decide if he wished to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.