🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered data by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was told allegations against newspapers were likely to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to take place before the end of the year.