🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant denies the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on strong medication after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was informed allegations against publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, said he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to decide if he desired to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

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