🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the testimony are mostly false.”

He added that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy medication after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for advice.

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose whether he wished to seek a witness summons to call Burrows, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.