🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired intel by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.

His testimony indicated he was advised allegations targeting newspapers were likely to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued working for publications in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of disputes about if 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 another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to decide whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.