🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered intel by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as employing private investigators to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised claims against publications were expected to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to choose if he wanted to seek a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

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