🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to position listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased operating for publications in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

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

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to choose if he wanted to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

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