🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company denies the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed claims against publications were probable to settle privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to decide if he desired to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.