🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest claims of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the statement are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “never” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task concerning the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful medication after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was told lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in that year, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

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