Witness in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Confession Was Fabricated

A PI central to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are mostly false.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was advised claims against publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine if he wished to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.