🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as employing PIs to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

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

His statement said he was informed allegations against newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister one week to decide whether he desired to seek a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the legal action is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.