🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his supposed admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was told allegations against newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to decide whether he desired to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.