Prince Harry legal battle risks collapse as key witness withdraws ‘complete rubbish’ statement

The document in question allegedly contained admissions that Mr Burrows had engaged in widespread illegal surveillance activities, including phone hacking and vehicle bugging, targeting numerous individuals.

Five of the seven claimants pursuing legal action against the Daily Mail's publisher have indicated they initiated proceedings based on evidence supposedly provided by Mr Burrows.

The broader legal action encompasses seven prominent figures, including Baroness Doreen Lawrence, David Furnish, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes, who have accused Associated Newspapers of orchestrating systematic privacy violations.

Their allegations include commissioning private investigators to install listening devices in vehicles, obtaining confidential records through deception, and intercepting private telephone conversations. Associated Newspapers has vigorously contested these claims throughout the proceedings.

Mr Burrows has now compiled a comprehensive 30-page statement with assistance from independent legal counsel, categorically rejecting the authenticity of the earlier document.

The contested statement from August 16, 2021, purportedly detailed extensive unlawful information-gathering operations conducted by Mr Burrows and his associates.

According to the alleged confession, these activities encompassed intercepting voicemail messages, monitoring landline communications, and installing surveillance equipment in vehicles.

The document supposedly claimed Mr Burrows had targeted "hundreds, possibly thousands of people" whilst undertaking assignments for a Mail on Sunday journalist.

He now characterises various assertions within the statement as "completely false", "complete rubbish" and "a complete fantasy".

Mr Burrows maintains that the document contains language inconsistent with his typical manner of expression and that its contents are fundamentally inaccurate.

He specifically denies ever undertaking assignments for either the Mail on Sunday or Daily Mail, save for a single legitimate investigation concerning Sir Richard Branson.

In his September 2025 statement, Mr Burrows recounts being contacted by Graham Johnson, a journalist with a conviction for phone hacking, who persistently sought his assistance with research into press misconduct.

Mr Johnson allegedly introduced him to Dan Waddell, described as a paralegal, who compensated Mr Burrows £600 for each consultation session.

According to Mr Burrows, Mr Johnson proposed paying him £3,000 to produce a statement, though later claimed this suggestion was made in jest.

The investigator alleges he was repeatedly questioned about potential connections to the Daily Mail, which Mr Johnson identified as a primary target.

Mr Burrows claims Mr Johnson and Mr Waddell portrayed newspaper settlements as a "perfect scam" and "gravy train", suggesting publications would pay to avoid courtroom exposure.

Mr Johnson allegedly discussed Max Mosley's financial backing extensively, claiming abundant funding existed for suitable witnesses.

Mr Burrows was introduced to solicitor Anjlee Sangani, who represents Baroness Lawrence, Sir Elton, David Furnish and Liz Hurley in their claim against Associated.

He alleges that Ms Sangani visited his residence in early 2021, bearing expensive flowers and a £200 whisky bottle, and promised him £5,000 monthly for minimal work.

Mr Burrows describes meeting barrister David Sherborne in a London square alongside Ms Sangani and Mr Johnson, where Mr Sherborne enquired about surveillance methods and fees.

Legal proceedings have since grown complex, with the claimants no longer intending to call Mr Burrows as a witness due to his withdrawn cooperation. They plan to rely on hearsay evidence regarding his claims instead.

Associated's counsel, Antony White KC, has requested permission to cross-examine Mr Burrows about his recantation of the original statement.

Mr Justice Matthew Nicklin has granted Mr Sherborne a week to determine whether to summon Mr Burrows as a witness, noting that if his testimony contradicts their evidence, they could request to treat him as hostile.

The case represents one of several privacy battles against British newspapers, with a nine-week trial set for January 2026 carrying estimated costs of £38million.