🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of illicit information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine if he desired to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.