🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe accusations of unlawful data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to install bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the claimants have told the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for guidance.

His statement claimed he was told allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose if he wished to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.