🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illicit information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the allegations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

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

Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was told claims targeting publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.