🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered data by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company disputes the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a recent detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not identify” 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 “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was told claims against newspapers were expected to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased being employed for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose if he wanted to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.