🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The company disputes the accusations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged 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 dispute the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “not once” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy analgesics after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony indicated he was told lawsuits targeting publications were probable to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to choose whether he desired to apply for a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.