🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with inquiry on accusations of spying against media outlets.

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

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to choose if he wanted to request a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.