🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by hacking voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told allegations against newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to decide if he desired to request a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.