Witness in Prince Harry Legal Action Alleges Confession Was Untrue

A PI central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring PIs to install bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on powerful analgesics after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was advised claims targeting newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose whether he wished to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to be held before the end of the year.