🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired intel by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the claimants have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, saying he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy medication after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His testimony said he was told claims targeting newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.