🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe claims of unlawful data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired intel by hacking voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to install bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have told the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the details of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “never” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was advised allegations against publications were probable to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped being employed for newspapers in 2003, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to seek a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.