🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

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

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to install listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his purported statement in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted help with inquiry on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was told allegations against newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to determine if he desired to request a court order to call the witness, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.