🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to position bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy analgesics after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was told lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to request a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.