🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered information by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to position bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong analgesics after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for advice.

His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to decide if he wished to request a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.