🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task involving the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on strong analgesics after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony said he was told claims against newspapers were expected to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments 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 David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to determine whether he desired to request a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to take place before the end of the year.