Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Admission Was Fabricated
A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.
Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.
Context of the Purported Confession
Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained data by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.
Retraction and Fresh Claims
Five of the individuals have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.
The witness had previously disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.
In the latest statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the contents”.
Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely false.”
He stated further that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task concerning the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.
Context of the Initial Testimony
The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.
He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for advice.
His statement indicated he was advised allegations targeting publications were probable to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.
Current Court Status
The witness was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.
Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as rumor.
The judge allowed the barrister one week to choose whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to call Burrows, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.
A subsequent court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.