🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious claims of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

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

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, 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 that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for advice.

His statement claimed he was advised allegations against publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to choose if he desired to request a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.