🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have told the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His testimony indicated he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister one week to determine whether he desired to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.