🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for counsel.

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

The investigator, who said he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to choose if he desired to seek a court order to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the end of the year.