🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe accusations of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered data by hacking voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to position bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, stating he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed allegations against publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister one week to decide whether he wished to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.