🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired information by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for advice.

His testimony indicated he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were likely to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

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