🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained data by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to position listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company disputes the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have told the court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for advice.

His statement said he was told lawsuits against publications were likely to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.