🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as employing PIs to position bugs inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company disputes the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was advised allegations targeting newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to decide if he wished to request a court order to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.