🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained information by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, stating he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was told claims targeting publications were likely to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine if he wanted to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.