🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy analgesics after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits against publications were expected to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to choose if he wanted to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.