Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Confession Was False
A private investigator integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.
Context of the Alleged Confession
The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by breaching voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The publishing group is accused by the group of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to place listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the allegations and is contesting the legal action.
Retraction and New Allegations
Five of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.
Burrows had earlier disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.
In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.
Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”
He added that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.
Context of the Original Statement
The witness stated he was on strong medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.
He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for advice.
His statement said he was told claims targeting publications were probable to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.
Burrows, who claimed he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.
Current Legal Situation
The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.
Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.
The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose whether he desired to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.
A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.