🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired data by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception against publications.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for advice.

His statement claimed he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

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

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister one week to choose whether he desired to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.