Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Confession Was Fabricated
A private investigator central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe allegations of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.
Context of the Alleged Confession
Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered data by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The media company is charged by the group of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.
Retraction and New Claims
Several of the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony allegedly acquired by Burrows.
Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.
In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.
The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”
He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.
Context of the Initial Statement
Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on allegations of interception against newspapers.
He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.
His testimony claimed he was told lawsuits against publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.
The investigator, who claimed he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.
Current Court Situation
The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.
A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.
The judge granted the barrister one week to determine if he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.
A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.