🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired data by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant denies the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on information seemingly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with research on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for advice.

His testimony said he was told allegations against publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to determine if he wished to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.