🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired information by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to install listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful analgesics after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to choose whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.