A inquiry agent integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.
The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The publishing group is alleged by the group of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company disputes the claims and is defending the legal action.
Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.
The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.
In the recent statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.
Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”
He stated further that he had “at no time” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.
The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.
He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for advice.
His statement said he was told lawsuits against newspapers were likely to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.
Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.
A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.
The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to determine if he wanted to request a court order to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.
A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the end of the year.
