🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest accusations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant denies the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement claimed he was informed allegations against newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as rumor.

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

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.