Witness in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Confession Was False
A PI integral to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.
Context of the Alleged Statement
Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring PIs to install listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is defending the lawsuit.
Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations
Five of the claimants have informed the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.
Burrows had before retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.
In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.
Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are largely false.”
He stated further that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.
Circumstances of the Initial Testimony
The witness claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.
He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for advice.
His testimony claimed he was advised claims against publications were probable to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.
Burrows, who said he had stopped operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.
Current Legal Situation
Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.
A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.
The judge granted the barrister seven days to decide if he wished to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.
A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.