🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by hacking voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The company disputes the claims and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on powerful medication after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony indicated he was told allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose whether he desired to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.