🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered data by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “never” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

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

Current Legal Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, 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 testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.