🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered information by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the statement are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on powerful analgesics after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with research on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations against publications were probable to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to choose whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.