Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Confession Was Untrue

A PI integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe claims of illegal information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by breaching voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on evidence apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job involving the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations against newspapers were expected to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister one week to choose if he wished to apply for a court order to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

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