🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by accessing voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a recent detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with research on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was advised claims targeting newspapers were expected to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to choose if he desired to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

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