🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious claims of illicit data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained intel by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on information apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” 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 dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His statement indicated he was told claims against publications were probable to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped working for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to determine if he wished to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the end of the year.