🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his supposed admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his alleged testimony in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped being employed for publications in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose whether he wished to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.