🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported 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 “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “never” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy analgesics after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony claimed he was told allegations against publications were likely to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to seek a court order to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.