🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the group of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was told lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to settle 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 “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to request a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.