Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Admission Was False

A private investigator at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of unlawful information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as employing private investigators to install bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

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

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony said he was advised allegations against newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide if he wished to apply for a court order to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

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