Witness in Prince Harry Case Claims Confession Was False

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered intel by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially false.”

He added that he had “not once” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on strong analgesics after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

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

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the end of the year.