🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained information by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he restated his denial, declaring 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 supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong analgesics after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on allegations of interception against publications.

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

His testimony indicated he was informed lawsuits against publications were probable to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to determine if he wanted to request a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the legal action is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.