• World
• Europe
• Courts

By Victoria Ward

November 12, 2025 — 8.58am

The private investigator whose apparent confession prompted Prince Harry and others to sue the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed that his pivotal witness statement was “completely false” and the signature “a forgery”.

Gavin Burrows claimed that a witness statement dated August 2021, in which he appeared to admit targeting “a large number of private individuals” over a number of years by hacking phones and bugging cars, was “prepared by others without my knowledge”.

Private investigator Gavin Burrows seen in a 2021 BBC documentary.Credit: BBC

Five of the seven claimants – including the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence – have told the High Court they embarked on the high-profile legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited based on evidence apparently obtained by Burrows.

The private investigator said he “felt very sorry” for Lady Lawrence because she had been “duped into pursuing a claim on the basis of false information”.

Burrows has now drawn up a 30-page witness statement – released by the court on Tuesday – with the help of independent lawyers in which he says he “does not recognise” the “purported witness statement” issued in his name.

“I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery,” he says, describing its various claims as “completely false”, “complete rubbish”, and “a complete fantasy”.

Prince Harry in London in September. He has told the High Court he embarked on the high-profile legal action based on evidence apparently obtained by Burrows.Credit: AP

In the statement dated September 25, 2025, Burrows describes how he was approached by Graham Johnson, a convicted phone hacker, who “would not leave me alone”.

Johnson is said to have told Burrows that he was working on phone hacking claims against newspapers and wanted some help with his research. He introduced him to a “paralegal” colleague called Dan Waddell, who paid Burrows £600 ($1200) every time he advised them.

On one occasion, according to Burrows, Johnson offered to pay him £3000 to write a statement, later insisting it was just a joke.

“I remember they asked me on more than one occasion whether I had done any work for the Daily Mail,” Burrows said. “They told me that the Daily Mail was a major target. I told them repeatedly that I had not worked for the Mail.”

Elton John outside London’s Royal Courts of Justice in 2023.Credit: Getty

Burrows claims that Johnson and Waddell said newspapers “did not want the publicity or cost of a court case” so would pay to settle claims, a pattern Waddell is said to have described as a “perfect scam” and “a gravy train”.

Meanwhile, Johnson is said to have spoken a lot about Max Mosley – the former president of the FIA, the Formula 1 motorsport body – and the money he was pumping into his business and the investigations, claiming that “there was plenty of money in the pool and there was always enough money for the right witness”.

Mosley, who won a privacy case against the News of the World after it exposed his sex life, bankrolled a number of phone-hacking cases against newspapers in the civil courts.

Loading

Johnson introduced Burrows to Anjlee Sangani, the solicitor who certified his disputed witness statement, and whom he says he met only twice.

Sangani is instructed by Lady Lawrence, Sir Elton, his husband David Furnish and Liz Hurley in the Associated claim.

When Sangani visited Burrows’ house in early 2021, she brought “hundreds of pounds worth of flowers” for his house and a £200 bottle of whisky, he claims in his statement.

She allegedly told him to deal only with Johnson, who would pay him cash, and promised a regular monthly retainer.

“I would get £5000 a month for working a couple of days a week, and if I had any cash expenses, I only had to ask [Johnson],” Burrows wrote in the new statement.

Prince Harry outside court after four-day hearing on his case against the company that publishes The Daily Mail. Credit: AP

“She said that they were going after all the newspapers. She said that after the [News of the World], the main paper they were going after was the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday because they had the most money.

“She asked me if I had done any work for the Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday. I said no, I had not, but I had met with [journalist] Paul Henderson a couple of times.”

Henderson has denied commissioning Burrows, the court has heard.

Loading

A few weeks later, Burrows says he was summoned to a meeting with Sangani and Johnson in a London square, where they were joined by David Sherborne, the claimant’s barrister.

According to Burrows, Sherborne asked him about his investigative techniques and how much he charged for surveillance.

In late 2021, Johnson is said to have told Burrows he had an idea for a documentary about the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence – the son of Lady Lawrence – and later asked him to go to Cyprus to track down one of the first CID officers on the scene, which he did.

In early 2023, Burrows heard that Lady Lawrence had brought a claim against Associated Newspapers based on evidence he had supposedly obtained from former police officers who had worked on the Lawrence murder investigation.

Burrows contacted the Mail and wrote a statement dated March 2023, in which he categorically denied the claims made by Prince Harry and others, stating that he “was never instructed or commissioned by anyone at the Mail on Sunday or the Daily Mail to conduct unlawful information gathering on their behalf” and was never asked to target any of the claimants.

The claimants do not intend to call Burrows because he has withdrawn his co-operation. They instead intend to rely on “hearsay evidence” in relation to his claims.

Antony White, KC, for Associated, has applied to cross-examine the private investigator. He told the court on Tuesday that he wants to ask Burrows if he had “recanted or disavowed his first statement”.

The new witness statement was made public after an application to the judge. It was lodged with the court as an exhibit to a statement by a solicitor instructed by Associated seeking permission to cross-examine him.

Sherborne did not oppose its release but asked that any reporting reflect his view “about the scurrilous nature of its contents”.

He described it as “a grotesque inclusion which is meant to be an attack on parts of the legal team”, which “simply shouldn’t be permitted”.

The claimants, who include actress Sadie Frost and former politician Sir Simon Hughes, have accused Associated of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing and recording private phone conversations.

Associated has strongly rejected the allegations. A nine-week trial, projected to cost £38m, is scheduled for January.

Telegraph, London