🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest claims of illegal information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing confidential calls. The defendant disputes the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated 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 contents”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the substance of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony said he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased working for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to decide if he wished to seek a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.