Key Figure in Prince Harry Case Claims Admission Was False
A PI central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe allegations of illicit data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.
Context of the Alleged Confession
Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.
Retraction and New Claims
Several of the plaintiffs have told the court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information seemingly obtained by the investigator.
The witness had before disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.
In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.
Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”
He stated further that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.
Context of the Original Testimony
Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.
He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated ÂŁ600 a instance for counsel.
His testimony claimed he was told lawsuits against newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who said he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.
Current Legal Status
Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.
A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.
The judge allowed Sherborne one week to determine if he desired to seek a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.
A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.
