🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his purported statement in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped working for publications in that year, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to decide whether he desired to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.