🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired information by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the group of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

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

The witness had before withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for advice.

His testimony indicated he was told claims targeting publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to decide whether he wished to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.