🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired intel by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy 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 desired help with research on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were expected to settle privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped working for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to request a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.