🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing confidential calls. The company disputes the accusations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He added that he had “never” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations targeting publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.