🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired data by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company disputes the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” 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 dispute the accuracy of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the substance of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on strong painkillers after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired help with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was advised claims targeting publications were probable to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to choose if he desired to seek a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.