🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe allegations of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement 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. Further, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong analgesics after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted help with research on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was advised allegations targeting newspapers were probable to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to determine whether he desired to request a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.