🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered intel by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “never” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong analgesics after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

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

His testimony indicated he was told lawsuits against newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in 2003, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to choose if he wanted to seek a court order to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.