🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of unlawful data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to position bugs inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial 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 reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on powerful medication after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony said he was told lawsuits against newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge granted the barrister one week to choose if he wished to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

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