🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest accusations of illicit information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained information by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task involving the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy medication after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

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

His statement claimed he was told allegations targeting publications were probable to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to decide whether he wanted to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.