Witness in Prince Harry Case Claims Admission Was False

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired data by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on strong medication after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for counsel.

His statement claimed he was told lawsuits targeting publications were probable to settle privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to decide whether he desired to request a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the case is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.