Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Confession Was False

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most serious accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed 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 private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant rejects the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy analgesics after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony said he was told allegations targeting publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to choose whether he wished to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

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