🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for counsel.

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were probable to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to decide if he wanted to seek a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.