🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as employing PIs to place bugs inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on strong analgesics after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with research on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony indicated he was told lawsuits against publications were likely to settle privately, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose whether he desired to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.