Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Admission Was Fabricated

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most severe accusations of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to place bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the details of the testimony are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted support with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for counsel.

His testimony said he was advised claims targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued working for newspapers in 2003, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.