Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Admission Was Fabricated
A private investigator at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.
Background of the Alleged Statement
Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired data by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the accusations and is defending the case.
Withdrawal and New Allegations
Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by the investigator.
Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.
In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the contents”.
The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are substantially false.”
He added that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.
Context of the Original Testimony
The witness said he was on heavy medication after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.
He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for guidance.
His statement said he was told lawsuits against newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.
Burrows, who said he had stopped being employed for newspapers in 2003, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.
Current Legal Situation
The witness was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.
A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as hearsay.
The judge gave Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wished to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.
A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.
