🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained intel by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the allegations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed allegations against publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to choose if he desired to seek a court order to compel the witness, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.