Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Admission Was False

A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered information by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

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

Burrows had previously retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a time for advice.

His statement said he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to determine whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

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