Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Confession Was Fabricated

A PI at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, linked to the gravest claims of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy analgesics after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with research on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for guidance.

His statement claimed he was advised claims against publications were likely to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to decide whether he desired to request a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the case is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.