🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action filed 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, connected to the most serious allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “never” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with research on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for guidance.

His statement claimed he was advised claims against publications were expected to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to determine if he desired to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the end of the year.