Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Confession Was Fabricated

A private investigator integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of illicit data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to position bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to choose if he wanted to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.