🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained intel by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging PIs to install surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have told the court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the details of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on heavy analgesics after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement said he was informed allegations against newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to decide whether he desired to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.