Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Claims Confession Was Untrue

A private investigator central to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained intel by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant denies the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially false.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on heavy painkillers after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was advised claims against newspapers were expected to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister one week to choose if he wanted to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.