🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the accusations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task concerning the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose if he wanted to request a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.