Key Figure in Prince Harry Case Claims Confession Was False
A PI central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.
The investigator, linked to the most serious allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, retracted his supposed statement, saying it was “completely false”.
Context of the Alleged Statement
Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is defending the case.
Retraction and Fresh Claims
Several of the claimants have stated to the court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.
The witness had previously disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.
In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.
Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”
He added that he had “at no time” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.
Circumstances of the Initial Testimony
Burrows stated he was on powerful analgesics after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted support with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.
He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated ÂŁ600 a session for counsel.
His testimony claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who claimed he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.
Current Legal Status
The witness was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.
Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as rumor.
The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose if he wanted to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.
A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.
