🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained intel by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to place bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have told the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he desired to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.