🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered intel by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony 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 style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy analgesics after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was told allegations against publications were probable to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to seek a court order to call the witness, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.