Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Confession Was Fabricated

A PI at the heart of the court case brought 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 allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by accessing 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 plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring PIs to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on information seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations targeting publications were expected to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, said he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to decide if he desired to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.