🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of illicit information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by breaching voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely false.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with investigation on allegations of interception targeting publications.

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

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations targeting newspapers were probable to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased operating for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide if he wished to apply for a witness summons to call Burrows, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

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