🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony said he was advised lawsuits against publications were probable to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

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

Current Legal Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

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

The judge granted Sherborne one week to determine whether he desired to request a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.