Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Confession Was Fabricated

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained information by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to position listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, saying he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for publications in that year, said he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to decide if he wanted to seek a court order to call the witness, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.