🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the gravest allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained information by hacking voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The company rejects the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised claims against publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wished to seek a witness summons to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.