🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of illicit information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to install listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, saying he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for counsel.

His statement said he was told allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to decide if he desired to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.