🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have told the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy analgesics after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was advised allegations against publications were expected to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, said he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wished to request a court order to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.