🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered information by hacking voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was informed claims targeting publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to choose if he wished to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to take place before the end of the year.