🔗 Share this article

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

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe claims of illicit data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired intel by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as employing PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed 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 unlawful act on behalf of the company.

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

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the statement are mostly false.”

He added that he had “never” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on strong medication after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to determine whether he wanted to request a court order to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the case is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.