🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, saying he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are substantially false.”

He added that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on strong painkillers after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with research on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was told claims targeting publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in that year, said he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to determine if he wanted to request a court order to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.