🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of unlawful information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as employing PIs to install bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

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

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong analgesics after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted help with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to choose if he wanted to seek a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.