Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Admission Was False
A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.
Context of the Alleged Confession
The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The publishing group is charged by the group of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as employing private investigators to position listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.
Retraction and Fresh Claims
Several of the claimants have told the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.
Burrows had earlier withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.
In the new statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.
The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are substantially false.”
He added that he had “at no time” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.
Context of the Initial Statement
The witness stated he was on strong analgesics after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with research on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.
He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for counsel.
His testimony claimed he was advised allegations against publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.
Present Court Status
The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.
Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.
The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to decide whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.
A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.
