🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired intel by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to determine if he wished to request a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.