🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe allegations of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on strong analgesics after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was told claims against newspapers were likely to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to choose whether he desired to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.