🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious claims of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired intel by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to place listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the claimants have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was informed claims targeting publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to determine if he wanted to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.