🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with research on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to determine if he wanted to request a witness summons to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.