🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired data by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the group of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company disputes the claims and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with research on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was told claims against newspapers were likely to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the case is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.