🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong medication after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for advice.

His testimony indicated he was advised claims targeting newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to decide whether he desired to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.