🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the gravest claims of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was told allegations targeting publications were likely to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, said he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he wished to request a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.