🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy medication after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted support with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement claimed he was advised claims targeting publications were expected to settle privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to decide whether he desired to seek a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.