🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging PIs to place bugs inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful medication after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed claims against publications were probable to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

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

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to determine if he wished to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.