🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious accusations of illicit information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company disputes the accusations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a instance for guidance.

His testimony said he was told allegations targeting publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for publications in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose if he wanted to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.