🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered intel by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have told the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His statement indicated he was advised allegations targeting publications were likely to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose if he wished to seek a court order to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to occur before the end of the year.