2 hours ago
2
A private investigator central to the legal action by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed that his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.
Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) is accused by the group of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations. ANL denies the allegations and is defending the legal action.
Five of the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the legal action against ANL based on evidence apparently obtained by Burrows.
Burrows previously retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of ANL.
In the new statement he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.
Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”
He added that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail on Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.
Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a former journalist and whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.
He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for advice.
His statement said he was told claims against newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that ANL were not one of my clients”.
Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the trial.
Antony White KC, for ANL, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.
Mr Justice Nicklin gave Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.
A further pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.
