Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Admission Was Untrue

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired intel by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to position listening devices inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for advice.

His statement claimed he was told lawsuits against newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose if he wished to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.