🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe claims of illicit data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for counsel.

His statement said he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose whether he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

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