Witness in Prince Harry Case Claims Admission Was False
A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, saying it was “completely false”.
Context of the Alleged Confession
The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is opposing the case.
Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations
Five of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by Burrows.
Burrows had before disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.
In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.
The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”
He stated further that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment concerning the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.
Context of the Original Statement
Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.
He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for advice.
His testimony indicated he was told lawsuits against newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.
The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.
Current Legal Status
The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.
Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.
The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose if he wished to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.
A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the end of the year.