🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained intel by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong medication after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for advice.

His testimony claimed he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to determine if he desired to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.