🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most severe allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant denies the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one task concerning the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with research on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

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