🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of unlawful data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to place bugs inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.

His testimony said he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose whether he wished to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.