🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging PIs to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on information seemingly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment concerning the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement said he was told lawsuits against newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

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

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to decide if he wished to request a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the end of the year.