🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with research on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were likely to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he desired to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.