Witness in Prince Harry Case Claims Admission Was False

A PI central to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained information by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as employing PIs to position listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the details of the testimony are largely false.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy medication after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was informed claims targeting publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

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

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to determine whether he wished to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.