🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired intel by breaching 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 publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time engaged in 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 was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one task relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a time for advice.

His statement claimed he was advised allegations against newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.