🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the details of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for advice.

His statement claimed he was informed lawsuits against publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to decide whether he wished to seek a witness summons to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the case is projected to take place before the end of the year.