🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on information allegedly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His statement said he was told claims targeting newspapers were likely to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to decide whether he desired to request a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.