Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Confession Was False
A private investigator central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.
Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.
Context of the Alleged Statement
The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained information by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring PIs to position bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.
Retraction and New Allegations
Five of the individuals have told the court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently acquired by the investigator.
Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.
In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the material”.
Burrows said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the statement are mostly untrue.”
He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.
Context of the Original Statement
Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with research on allegations of interception against media outlets.
He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for advice.
His testimony claimed he was informed allegations against publications were probable to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.
Burrows, who stated he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.
Current Legal Status
The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.
A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.
The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to decide whether he wanted to seek a court order to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.
A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.
