🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest accusations of unlawful data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, saying he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on heavy painkillers after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for advice.

His testimony said he was told lawsuits targeting publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.