Key Figure in Prince Harry Case Alleges Admission Was Fabricated
A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.
The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.
Context of the Alleged Confession
The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.
Retraction and New Allegations
Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by Burrows.
The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.
In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the material”.
The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”
He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.
Circumstances of the Original Testimony
Burrows said he was on strong medication after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.
He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated ÂŁ600 a time for advice.
His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.
Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.
Current Legal Status
The witness was originally a witness for the group, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.
A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.
The judge granted Sherborne seven days to choose whether he desired to seek a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.
A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.
