🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for advice.

His statement said he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for publications in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to determine if he wished to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.