🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained intel by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as employing PIs to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information seemingly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement said he was informed allegations against publications were expected to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped working for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wished to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.