🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe allegations of illicit information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained information by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the allegations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously disavowed his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “never” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on strong medication after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony said he was advised claims targeting publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to decide whether he wished to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.