🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement 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 usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.