🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained intel by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting confidential calls. The company disputes the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to decide if he desired to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.