Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Admission Was Untrue
A private investigator at the heart of the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe accusations of illicit data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.
Background of the Purported Confession
Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered intel by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The publishing group is accused by the group of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to install bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the legal action.
Retraction and Fresh Claims
Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.
The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.
In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.
Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”
He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.
Circumstances of the Initial Testimony
The witness claimed he was on strong medication after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with research on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.
He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.
His statement said he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were likely to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.
Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.
Present Court Situation
The witness was at first a witness for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.
Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as secondhand information.
The judge granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to apply for a court order to call the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.
A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to occur before the end of the year.
