🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for advice.

His testimony indicated he was informed claims targeting publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to choose if he wanted to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.