Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Confession Was Fabricated
A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of illegal data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported admission, saying it was “completely false”.
Context of the Purported Statement
The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the case.
Retraction and Fresh Claims
Several of the individuals have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on information seemingly obtained by the investigator.
The witness had before retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.
In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial 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 reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.
Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”
He continued that he had “never” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.
Circumstances of the Original Statement
The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with investigation on accusations of spying against newspapers.
He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for counsel.
His statement indicated he was informed allegations targeting publications were expected to settle privately, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.
Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for newspapers in that year, stated he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.
Present Legal Status
The witness was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.
A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.
The judge gave Sherborne seven days to choose if he wished to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.
A further court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.