🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered information by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his purported statement in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told allegations against publications were likely to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to decide if he wished to request a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.