🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered intel by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the group of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his denial, declaring he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on heavy painkillers after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were probable to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to request a court order to call the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.