🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong medication after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted support with research on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was advised allegations against publications were probable to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to decide if he desired to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.