🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with research on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement claimed he was told claims against publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, said he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister one week to determine whether he desired to request a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.