🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained data by hacking voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on evidence allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony said he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were probable to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wished to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

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