🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wished to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.