🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained information by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant disputes the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on evidence apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task concerning the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with inquiry on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for guidance.

His statement said he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, said he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

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