Key Figure in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Confession Was Untrue

A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, associated with the most severe accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for guidance.

His statement said he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to determine if he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the end of the year.