🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted 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 rejection, declaring he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

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

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in that year, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wanted to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.