🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and others targeting 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 serious claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained data by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as employing private investigators to install bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy analgesics after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told claims against newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he desired to seek a court order to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

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