🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to install listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed claims targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to decide if he wished to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.