🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing confidential calls. The company disputes the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on strong analgesics after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

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

His testimony claimed he was informed claims targeting publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wished to seek a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.