Key Figure in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Confession Was Fabricated

A private investigator central to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.

His statement said he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine if he wanted to request a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the case is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.