🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired intel by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the individuals have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his purported statement in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His statement said he was told lawsuits targeting publications were likely to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued working for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to decide if he desired to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the case is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.