🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired intel by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” personal files and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

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

His testimony claimed he was told claims targeting publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for newspapers in that year, said he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

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

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide if he wished to apply for a court order to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.