🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely false.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His testimony said he was advised allegations targeting publications were probable to settle privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to choose if he wanted to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.