🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to place bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company disputes the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task relating to the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations against publications were expected to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose if he desired to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.