🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to decide if he desired to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the end of the year.