🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of illegal information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on information seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the substance of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to determine whether he desired to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the legal action is projected to take place before the end of the year.