🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the gravest accusations of illicit data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired intel by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to position bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the claimants have informed the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his supposed statement in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong analgesics after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed allegations against publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.