Key Figure in Prince Harry Case Alleges Admission Was Fabricated
A PI central to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.
Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.
Background of the Alleged Confession
The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging PIs to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.
Withdrawal and Fresh Claims
Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence allegedly gathered by Burrows.
Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.
In the new statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.
The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”
He stated further that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.
Circumstances of the Initial Testimony
Burrows stated he was on strong medication after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.
He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a time for guidance.
His statement indicated he was advised allegations against publications were probable to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who said he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.
Current Legal Status
Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.
A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.
The judge granted Sherborne one week to decide if he wanted to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.
A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.