🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained intel by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with research on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was told claims against publications were likely to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

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

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to decide whether he desired to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to occur before the end of the year.