🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging PIs to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly false.”

He added that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to choose whether he desired to seek a court order to call the witness, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

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