A inquiry agent central to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.
The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, saying it was “completely false”.
Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the legal action.
Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.
Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.
In the latest statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.
Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”
He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.
Burrows stated he was on heavy analgesics after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.
He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for counsel.
His testimony claimed he was told claims targeting publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.
The investigator, who said he had stopped operating for publications in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.
The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the court case.
A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.
The judge granted the barrister one week to determine if he wished to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.
A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.
A seasoned casino analyst with over a decade of experience in gaming strategies and industry trends.
