🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to install bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant denies the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on strong medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance 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 remunerated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was advised claims against publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

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

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the end of the year.