🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as employing private investigators to install listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing confidential calls. The company disputes the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement said he was advised claims against publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped operating for publications in that year, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to choose if he wanted to seek a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.