🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and accessing confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “not once” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one task involving the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was advised claims targeting publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to determine whether he desired to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the end of the year.