🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed 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 accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy medication after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with research on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony claimed he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes David Furnish 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 judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to choose if he desired to request a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.