🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, retracted his supposed confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to install listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have told the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier 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, saying he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong medication after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told claims targeting newspapers were likely to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said 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 Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to choose whether he desired to seek a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.