Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Admission Was Untrue

A inquiry agent integral to the court case brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest accusations of unlawful data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “never” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for guidance.

His statement said he was told lawsuits targeting publications were expected to settle privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide if he wanted to request a court order to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.