🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained intel by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a time for advice.

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

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to choose if he wished to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.