🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered information by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring PIs to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired help with research on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was told allegations against publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in that year, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose whether he wanted to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.