🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “not once” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong analgesics after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for advice.

His statement claimed he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the legal action is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.