🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was informed allegations against publications were likely to settle privately, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to decide if he wanted to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.