🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious accusations of illegal data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the group of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, declaring he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for guidance.

His testimony said he was advised allegations against newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to determine if he wanted to request a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.