🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his supposed confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered data by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his alleged statement 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 disavowal, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony said he was advised claims against newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wished to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.