🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

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

Burrows had previously disavowed his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were expected to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to choose if he wanted to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.