🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, said he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to determine if he desired to apply for a court order to call Burrows, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.