Key Figure in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Confession Was Untrue

A PI central to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered information by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially false.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was informed lawsuits against publications were likely to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to choose if he desired to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to be held before the end of the year.