Key Figure in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Admission Was False

A private investigator integral to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

The investigator, connected to the most serious allegations of illicit data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the group of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on heavy painkillers after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony said he was told claims targeting publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

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