🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing private investigators to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a time for guidance.

His statement indicated he was advised allegations targeting publications were likely to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to choose if he wished to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.