🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with research on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised claims targeting newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to choose if he wished to request a court order to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.