🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired information by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on strong painkillers after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to decide whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

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