Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Admission Was Fabricated
A PI central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.
Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest accusations of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.
Background of the Alleged Confession
The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered information by hacking voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is defending the legal action.
Retraction and Fresh Allegations
Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony seemingly acquired by the investigator.
Burrows had before withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.
In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.
The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are mostly false.”
He stated further that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.
Circumstances of the Initial Statement
Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.
He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for advice.
His statement said he was advised claims against publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.
Burrows, who claimed he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.
Current Legal Status
Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.
A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.
The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose whether he wished to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.
A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.