🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered information by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing confidential calls. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy medication after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was informed claims targeting publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to choose if he wished to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.