Key Figure in Prince Harry Case Claims Admission Was False

A inquiry agent central to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the most severe allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained intel by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task involving the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for advice.

His statement said he was advised allegations against publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to determine if he wanted to request a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.