Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Claims Admission Was Fabricated

A private investigator central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illicit information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to install listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, saying he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy painkillers after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed claims targeting publications were expected to settle privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to choose if he wanted to request a court order to compel the witness, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.