Key Figure in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Admission Was False

A PI central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and accessing confidential calls. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told lawsuits against newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.