🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the group of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired support with inquiry on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed claims against publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister one week to choose if he wished to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.