🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired information by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the claims and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with research on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for counsel.

His statement said he was told claims against publications were probable to settle privately, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, stated he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to decide if he wished to request a court order to call the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the end of the year.