🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired intel by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to install listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised claims targeting publications were expected to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased being employed for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

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

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.