🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most serious allegations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to position bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong analgesics after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted support with inquiry on accusations of spying against publications.

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

His testimony said he was told claims targeting publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, said he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister one week to determine if he desired to request a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness provided evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.