🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on information allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful analgesics after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for counsel.

His statement indicated he was advised claims targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, said he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to choose whether he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.