Private investigator Gavin Burrows was instrumental in the legal action taken by the Duke of Sussex and other claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail. Now he’s given the public pivotal information about his participation in the case. Burrows has even stated that his own signature on an earlier witness affidavit was forgery. It’s worth noting that he had officially withdrawn this false claim in the spring of 2023. This latest revelation raises serious doubt about the truthfulness of his earlier testimony. Equally important, it might have major consequences for the current legal challenges.
On September 25, 2025, Burrows filed a 30-page long witness statement. In it, he again, unequivocally and repeatedly denied doing anything unlawful linked to the publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL). And he forcefully proclaimed that he has not hacked voicemail or tapped phones. Not only are those accusations against him not sexual harassment, they’re not even true.
As Burrows told all of us, “Graham Johnson, I have told you a hundred times ANL were not one of my clients! This bold claim stands in stark contrast to the accuracy of past claims. In a witness statement dated August 16, 2021, he purportedly described the techniques he used to acquire information whilst employed within the print media sector.
The private investigator’s allegations come at an interesting time though. Well-known claimants including David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes have written to the High Court informing them that they are suing ANL. Their legal action rests almost entirely on the second-hand interpretation of evidence that Burrows allegedly collected. His participation has quickly turned into a flashpoint in court debates over whether he’ll be called to testify.
Burrows shared that it was through a colleague of his that we were first introduced to one another through Dan Waddell. Paralegal Waddell had a payment plan of £600 for the legal advice he delivered. This lived detail – of urban machines – infinitely deepens Burrows’, already rich, narrative. I’m sure he’s looking to get as far away from those complaints as possible while still explaining his ties.
Even with all these advancements, Burrows ever since has insisted that he does not acknowledge the previous witness statement from 2021. He maintains that the document fails to adequately reflect the actions he’s taken or plans to take. He is adamant that it has a forged signature. The consequences of this claim, if accepted, could greatly change the trajectory of the legal fight between the claimants and ANL.
Beyond the story of QLD Inc, Burrows spoke candidly about his home life when approached by journalist Graham Johnson. It was the first time I heard how heavy painkillers were impacting his life after being physically assaulted so severely. On top of that, he was an alcoholic. Providing that context may explain some of the contradictions in his previous testimony. It might raise disturbing questions about his predatory state of mind when dealing with the media people.
Burrows ceased journalistic work for a newspaper in 2003 and has since reclined from the newspaper world. Yet, he remains involved in some of the most notable legal cases. Public discourse has intensified on his likely role as a witness. Both the petitioners and respondents in the case will likely mine his public statements and past connections for more.