🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illicit data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for guidance.

His statement said he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to decide if he wished to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.