🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly false.”

He added that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a time for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped being employed for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to determine if he wanted to request a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.