🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant denies the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on strong medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.