Witness in Prince Harry Case Alleges Admission Was Fabricated

A private investigator at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with research on accusations of spying against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told allegations against newspapers were likely to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to choose if he wanted to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.