🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong painkillers after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for advice.

His testimony indicated he was informed allegations against newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to request a court order to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.