Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Claims Admission Was Untrue
A PI central to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.
The investigator, linked to the gravest allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.
Background of the Purported Confession
Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The publishing group is charged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.
Retraction and Fresh Allegations
Several of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on testimony seemingly obtained by Burrows.
Burrows had earlier withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.
In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the contents”.
Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”
He stated further that he had “not once” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.
Circumstances of the Initial Testimony
The witness claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on allegations of interception against publications.
He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for counsel.
His testimony said he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.
The investigator, who stated he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.
Present Court Situation
The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.
Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.
The judge granted Sherborne seven days to determine if he wished to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.
A additional court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.