🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired intel by breaching voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had before disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful medication after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement said he was advised allegations against newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to choose if he wanted to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.