🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious claims of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was told allegations targeting publications were likely to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister one week to determine if he wanted to request a court order to call Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony 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 year’s conclusion.