Witness in Prince Harry’s case against Mail publisher claims his ‘confession’ was forged
Key Takeaways:
- Key witness retracts 2021 confession — Private investigator Gavin Burrows told the High Court his earlier “admission” of phone hacking and unlawful surveillance was “completely false”.
- Forgery claim shakes core evidence — Burrows said the 2021 statement was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and that its content is “substantially untrue”.
- Legal implications for Prince Harry’s group case — The revelation could reshape how the court weighs evidence from claimants including Elton John, Doreen Lawrence, and Sadie Frost against Associated Newspapers.
A reversal in a landmark privacy case
A private investigator whose alleged “confession” helped form the backbone of Prince Harry’s privacy lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail has now told the High Court that his signature on that statement was forged — and that he never carried out any illegal activity for the paper.
Gavin Burrows, long portrayed as a key link between Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and alleged unlawful information gathering, said his supposed 2021 witness statement was a fabrication. He called it “completely false,” insisting he had “never” hacked voicemails, bugged cars, or tapped phones on behalf of ANL.
What the 2021 statement claimed
The disputed statement allegedly described how Burrows and his team had hacked phones, intercepted voicemails, and accessed private data for the Mail on Sunday. It was central to a lawsuit brought by seven public figures, including:
- The Duke of Sussex (Prince Harry)
- Sir Elton John and David Furnish
- Baroness Doreen Lawrence
- Sadie Frost, Elizabeth Hurley, and Simon Hughes
The claimants accuse ANL of commissioning private investigators to obtain personal information through illegal means — such as “blagging” medical records, wiretapping phones, and placing listening devices in cars.
ANL denies the allegations in full, calling the case “utterly unfounded” and vowing to defend its journalists and publications vigorously.
‘The signature is not mine’
In a fresh 30-page witness statement dated 25 September 2025, released to the court on Tuesday, Burrows reaffirmed his denial. He said:
“I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”
He added that he had “never” worked for the Mail on Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity.”
Burrows said that at the time the alleged 2021 statement was produced, he was recovering from a serious assault, taking strong painkillers, and drinking heavily. He claimed he had been approached by Graham Johnson, a former journalist and convicted phone hacker, who asked him to help with research into hacking allegations against newspapers.
‘A perfect scam’
Burrows alleged that Johnson, assisted by a man he described as a “paralegal” named Dan Waddell, told him that newspaper hacking cases often settled quietly out of court — describing them as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train.”
He said he was paid £600 per consultation but repeatedly told Johnson that ANL “were not one of my clients.”
Burrows, who said he stopped working for newspapers in 2003, insists he has no connection to the alleged activities that underpin Prince Harry’s and others’ claims.
Courtroom fallout
Burrows’s reversal throws a potential wrench into one of the most closely watched media lawsuits in the UK.
The High Court heard that five of the claimants based their allegations at least partly on the contents of Burrows’s disputed 2021 statement.
Antony White KC, representing ANL, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows. Meanwhile, David Sherborne, representing the Duke of Sussex and the other claimants, sought to treat Burrows’s new statement as hearsay evidence, meaning he might not be called to testify in person.
Mr Justice Nicklin has given Sherborne seven days to decide whether to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows to appear at trial. The judge said that if Burrows’s live evidence conflicts with earlier material, Sherborne could apply to treat him as a hostile witness.
A further pre-trial hearing is expected before the end of the year.
Implications for Prince Harry’s case
The Duke of Sussex has made privacy litigation a central part of his public campaign against media intrusion. The ANL case, separate from his earlier victories over the Mirror and Sun publishers, targets the Mail titles for alleged phone tapping, data theft, and unlawful surveillance over several years.
If Burrows’s retraction stands, the claimants may face hurdles in proving that ANL directly commissioned or condoned illegal practices.
However, legal analysts note that even without Burrows’s testimony, other evidence — phone records, invoices, and witness statements — could still form part of the claimants’ case.
The case will test not just the credibility of witnesses but also the limits of accountability for legacy newspaper publishers in the post-Leveson era.
What happens next
- Decision on witness summons: The claimants have one week to decide whether to compel Burrows to testify.
- Potential cross-examination: If called, Burrows could face questioning by ANL’s legal team on both his retraction and his alleged prior involvement.
- Further hearings: A new pre-trial hearing is expected before year-end, with a full trial anticipated in 2026.
Legal commentary (for Parachute Law readers)
This twist underscores how witness credibility and authenticity of documentary evidence are critical in privacy and defamation cases.
For legal practitioners:
- Forgery claims trigger heightened forensic scrutiny. Handwriting experts, digital metadata, and email trails may be required to authenticate the document in question.
- Hostile witness applications are rare but strategic — allowing a party to cross-examine its own witness if their evidence diverges materially.
- Hearsay notices must be managed carefully under the Civil Evidence Act 1995, balancing procedural efficiency with evidential fairness.
The outcome could influence future media litigation by clarifying how much weight courts place on disputed confessions or withdrawn statements in complex privacy cases.
Conclusion
Gavin Burrows’s claim that his 2021 “confession” was forged has dramatically shifted the narrative in Prince Harry’s case against the Daily Mail publisher. Whether the court accepts his latest statement as credible could determine not just the strength of the Duke’s case — but also how far the British courts are willing to go in revisiting old allegations of press misconduct.
For now, the High Court faces a difficult balance: determining whether the man once seen as a linchpin witness is, in fact, the case’s biggest uncertainty.
For expert commentary or media law support, contact Parachute Law’s defamation and privacy team.
We advise clients on evidence management, witness credibility, and litigation strategy in media and data-privacy disputes.
Related Articles:
The Common Mistake People Make When Divorcing – and How to Avoid It
Interim Maintenance: Financial Support During Your Divorce
Divorce and Jurisdiction: Why the Country You Divorce In Can Shape Your Financial Future
