🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired information by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to position bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with research on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in that year, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

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