🔗 Share this article Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Claims Confession Was Untrue A PI at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard. The investigator, linked to the gravest accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged statement, declaring it was “completely false”. Context of the Alleged Confession Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday. The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the allegations and is defending the case. Retraction and Fresh Claims Five of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly acquired by Burrows. The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company. In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”. Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely false.” He stated further that he had “never” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”. Circumstances of the Initial Testimony Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets. He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel. His testimony claimed he was informed claims against publications were expected to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”. Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”. Current Legal Status Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case. A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor. The judge granted the barrister one week to determine whether he desired to request a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”. A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.