🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry 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 heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was informed claims targeting publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine if he desired to seek a court order to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.