🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired data by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon the witness, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.