🔗 Share this article Key Figure in Prince Harry Case Claims Admission Was Fabricated A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told. The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”. Context of the Purported Confession Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday. The media company is charged by the claimants of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit. Retraction and New Allegations Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows. The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company. In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”. The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely false.” He added that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”. Circumstances of the Initial Testimony Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers. He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for advice. His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”. Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for publications in that year, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”. Current Court Situation The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings. A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay. The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to choose if he desired to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”. A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.