🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with investigation on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was told allegations against publications were expected to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to choose if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.