🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his supposed confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered data by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as employing PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the details of the testimony are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations against newspapers were likely to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to choose if he desired to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

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