Witness in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Admission Was Untrue

A PI integral to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by hacking voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to place bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant denies the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on information apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy medication after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony indicated he was informed allegations against newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for publications in that year, asserted he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to decide if he wished to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.