🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained data by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company rejects the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed claims against newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.