🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant denies the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are largely false.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for advice.

His testimony said he was told claims targeting publications were expected to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to determine whether he desired to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.