🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe claims of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained intel by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as employing PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task relating to the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for guidance.

His statement claimed he was advised claims against newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister one week to choose whether he desired to apply for a court order to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.