🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the substance of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised allegations against newspapers were likely to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued working for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to decide whether he wanted to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the case is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.