🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on testimony allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on powerful analgesics after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were expected to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped working for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to decide if he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.