Key Figure in Prince Harry Case Alleges Admission Was Fabricated
A inquiry agent integral to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.
Context of the Purported Confession
Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is alleged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to position bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the case.
Withdrawal and New Allegations
Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.
The witness had earlier disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.
In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.
The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”
He stated further that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.
Context of the Original Statement
Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.
He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated ÂŁ600 a time for guidance.
His statement indicated he was advised allegations targeting newspapers were probable to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.
Present Court Status
The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.
A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.
The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to determine if he desired to seek a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.
A further court session in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.
