Key Figure in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Confession Was Untrue

A private investigator integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the substance of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were probable to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to determine if he wished to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.