🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement claimed he was advised lawsuits against publications were expected to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to determine whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.