🔗 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 asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by breaching voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for guidance.

His statement said he was told allegations against newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose whether he desired to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.