🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe claims of illegal information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained information by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant denies the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on powerful medication after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told claims targeting newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.