🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered data by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement said he was told claims against newspapers were likely to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

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

Current Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose whether he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.