Witness in Prince Harry Case Claims Admission Was False
A private investigator at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.
Context of the Purported Statement
Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained intel by hacking voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The publishing group is charged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.
Withdrawal and Fresh Claims
Five of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence apparently acquired by the investigator.
The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.
In the new testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.
The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”
He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.
Context of the Initial Statement
The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.
He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for counsel.
His statement indicated he was informed allegations against newspapers were probable to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.
Present Court Situation
The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.
Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.
The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose if he wished to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.
A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.
