🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe claims of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired information by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company disputes the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to seek a court order to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.