🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest claims of illicit information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired data by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially false.”

He added that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with inquiry on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for guidance.

His statement said he was advised claims targeting newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

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

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

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to seek a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.