🔗 Share this article Witness in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Confession Was Untrue A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told. Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged admission, declaring it was “completely false”. Background of the Purported Statement The private eye had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday. The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as employing PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is opposing the legal action. Withdrawal and New Claims Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator. The witness had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company. In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”. The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the statement are largely false.” He continued that he had “never” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”. Circumstances of the Original Testimony Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with inquiry on allegations of interception against publications. He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for guidance. His statement said he was advised lawsuits against publications were probable to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”. Burrows, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”. Current Legal Status Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings. Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay. The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”. A additional court session in the case is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.