🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most serious allegations of illicit information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “not once” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on strong painkillers after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with inquiry on accusations of spying against publications.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony indicated he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he wished to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the case is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.