🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central 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 “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired information by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging PIs to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a time for counsel.

His testimony said he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister one week to determine whether he wished to seek a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.