🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong medication after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was told allegations against newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to determine if he desired to request a court order to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is expected to take place before the end of the year.