🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest claims of illicit data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have told the court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy analgesics after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was advised allegations against newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide if he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.