🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

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

The witness had previously retracted his supposed statement in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, stating he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for advice.

His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were expected to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to decide whether he desired to request a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the legal action is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.