🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his purported statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was advised claims targeting newspapers were probable to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.