🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired information by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed 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 truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was informed claims targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the case is expected to occur before the end of the year.