🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to install bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong medication after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was informed claims against publications were expected to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

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

Present Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent court session in the case is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.