🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained data by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have told the court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he restated his denial, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on powerful medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement said he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to determine whether he wished to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

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