🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered intel by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as employing private investigators to position listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted support with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for advice.

His statement said he was informed claims targeting newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in that year, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to call Burrows, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

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