🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired data by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for counsel.

His statement said he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose whether he desired to seek a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.