🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on accusations of spying against publications.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for advice.

His statement said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

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

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.