🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired data by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to private records and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the accusations and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one task involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy analgesics after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were expected to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to choose if he wished to request a court order to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.